National House Building Council Evidence & UKAS - Thursday 3rd February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to begin by hearing further evidence from mr anne marshall of the national house building council would you ask marshall to come

00:00:40 council would you ask marshall to come back in please thank you

00:00:52 good morning sasha good morning all ready to go yes thank you good thank you yes yes mr chairman good morning good morning members of the panel miss marshall good morning to you uh we were in the middle last night when

00:01:04 uh we were in the middle last night when we stopped of the email of the 11th of july 2014

00:01:08 july 2014 from steve evans to brian martin can we please go back to that it is at nhb 4050 732 please

00:01:20 and if we can go to page two in the email run you can see in the second paragraph down on your screen it says this as we had a number of projects under construction and in advanced stages of

00:01:31 construction and in advanced stages of design utilizing k-15 nhbc approached kingspan and made them aware of our concerns as a result of this dialogue kingspan are currently undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with

00:01:43 and facade treatments in accordance with bs84 part 1 2002. the results from the tests are expected by the end of this month and nhbc are meeting with kingspan at the beginning of august at which time kingspan will be

00:01:55 of august at which time kingspan will be asked to provide evidence that their product can be used in alternative construction types other than that specified in the current bba certificate again pausing there is it says there were projects with k-15

00:02:07 is it says there were projects with k-15 in advanced stages of design and construction at the time was building control approval by your approved inspectors or by the inspectors in bcs

00:02:18 in bcs limited suspended while that issue was being dealt with

00:02:26 in relation to projects from the 1st of january

00:02:31 january we were accepting registrations of projects

00:02:35 projects and and that involves the builder submitting an application to us to outline what products they want to purchase from nhbc ie warranty or building control so those projects would have been

00:02:47 so those projects would have been registered and when they're set up on our systems there is a standard blocking condition that is applied to all projects that says that we will need an awful lot of

00:02:58 says that we will need an awful lot of construction details to satisfy ourselves that these standards and regulations are being complied with so there is always that condition in place from day one through the course of the project these

00:03:09 through the course of the project these projects are quite sizeable um and take some time to develop the details they also

00:03:16 also are submitted in stages or phases of the construction elements so the the initial focus will be around the the foundation design the frame design etc the ground conditions

00:03:28 frame design etc the ground conditions all of those elements would be looked at first

00:03:31 first and the sort of cladding package or details of the wall constructions would tend to come later in the design process so

00:03:39 so unlike a local authority we don't have a five or eight week window to complete our assessment it's an ongoing assessment managed through the process of conditions so whilst those projects were accepted

00:03:51 so whilst those projects were accepted for registration they were not accepted for building control compliance that is an ongoing project or process through the life of the project until we get all of the information that satisfies the

00:04:02 of the information that satisfies the requirements right that's got a long evidence-rich answer which doesn't quite meet my question let me put it more simply during the period between the 1st of january 2014 and the

00:04:14 between the 1st of january 2014 and the date of this email 11th of july 2014

00:04:20 were building control officers within your subsidiary granting approval in other words signing off certificates that tall buildings containing k-15

00:04:33 that tall buildings containing k-15 complied

00:04:34 complied or were they not they would only have been signing off acceptances on the basis of the pre-2014

00:04:46 pre-2014 um bba certificate because there wasn't any projects that were coming up to completion post that date that i understand but i think the answer and tell me if this is wrong is no your building control officers were

00:04:58 your building control officers were granting building regulation compliance certification on tall buildings using a k-15

00:05:09 using a k-15 above 18 meters during that six-month seven month period based on the 2013 bba certificate yes even though by now you knew that it had

00:05:20 even though by now you knew that it had been changed and was wrong

00:05:25 was wrong well firstly we didn't know it it was wrong

00:05:28 wrong secondly the bba certificate is valid on the date of the application being submitted to a building control body so applications submitted prior to

00:05:39 body so applications submitted prior to the 31st of december 2013 would have been assessed on the basis of a valid current bba certificate at the time the application was made as head of technical services

00:05:52 technical services the responsibility for allowing your building control officers to continue in july 2014 to approve the use of k-15 in external wall buildups in buildings over 18

00:06:03 wall buildups in buildings over 18 meters was yours i think wasn't it yes ultimately yes can you account for how come nhbc despite knowing or having excellent reasons to think that

00:06:15 having excellent reasons to think that k-15

00:06:16 k-15 did not comply in all build-ups above 18 meters with approved document b was content to let its building control officers continue to approve its use on such buildings

00:06:28 to approve its use on such buildings within that seven month period as i stated within that seven month period there wouldn't have been any projects that would have been completed post the first of january 14th so it

00:06:39 post the first of january 14th so it comes back to the bba certificate as it stood up to midnight on the 31st of december 2013. yes

00:06:50 2013. yes i see

00:06:54 and as at mid-july 2014

00:07:00 is it your position that even though you knew or had very good reason to think that when it referred to 12.7 it was clearly a mistake nonetheless because it was a bba certificate

00:07:12 because it was a bba certificate that

00:07:13 that permitted you to permit your bcaas to sign off

00:07:17 sign off such buildings yes based on the 2013 certificate right and when you were signing off buildings you were formally confirming

00:07:29 you were formally confirming not that the structure complied with adb but that the structure complied with the building regulation functional requirement is that right yes the the completion

00:07:41 is that right yes the the completion certificate is evidence but not conclusive evidence of compliance it's that's the way it's worded in in the legislation but in your your mind your building surveyor's mind should be addressed to functional requirement yes

00:07:55 addressed to functional requirement yes and therefore if compliance with adb was apparent on paper but known or suspected not to be correct in substance could he justify signing off

00:08:07 could he justify signing off compliance with the functional requirement at that stage the the bba certificate for

00:08:13 for 2013

00:08:15 2013 was

00:08:16 was valid

00:08:17 valid in relation to projects that would have been registered and that's that's that's i think you're missing my point let's assume that it was valid whatever that is supposed to mean

00:08:28 that is supposed to mean it said what it said but if it were the case that what it said

00:08:32 said was obviously either wrong or suspect would that provide a sufficient basis for signing off on the functional

00:08:43 for signing off on the functional requirement b4

00:08:47 it would have been assessed against the available information at the time relevant to the submission date of the application

00:08:55 i'm not sure you're answering my question can you you understand what i'm asking yes

00:09:02 we would have taken available evidence that related to when the application was submitted and as there was a valid bba certificate in place

00:09:13 place at the time until the end of december that would have applied to that project through through the course of its life even if the and it would justify accepting compliance with functional

00:09:24 accepting compliance with functional requirement b41 even though even if it were the case that the certificate was either obviously wrong or

00:09:34 or very likely to be wrong at that stage there was there was no evidence that the certificate was i'm asking you a hypothetical question yes i'm not interested in any particular

00:09:45 i'm not interested in any particular certificate i'm just asking you that question you've got a an incorrect or potentially incorrect certificate of apparent compliance with adb

00:09:57 adb but suggesting that the building doesn't comply with b4 what do you do we would take all available evidence and review that

00:10:09 and review that in relation to the specific project

00:10:14 and and and make a decision on that basis um relative to the functional requirements the

00:10:20 the the

00:10:22 the as i think i think i mentioned yesterday that the concept of a bba certificate is is well established within the industry and within the statutory guidance that supports the functional requirements

00:10:33 supports the functional requirements so there was a process that was followed by my surveyors that allowed that to be completed

00:10:41 completed thank you very much did available did all available evidence not include the warning that had come from wintec at the meeting and

00:10:51 and john lewis's own views about what he had learned

00:10:56 learned in the last quarter or last four months of 2013.

00:11:01 of 2013. it was part of it yes and it informed our discussions with kingspan to gather further evidence

00:11:11 did all available evidence not include the fact that as as in communicated to steve evans and to you that notwithstanding what the bba certificate said about 12.7

00:11:23 certificate said about 12.7 k15 was not a material of limited combustibility was that not part of the evidential background to your decision

00:11:32 yes and it was the reason we were having extensive discussions with kingspan to gather further evidence well how would a meeting with kingspan even if they had provided further bs

00:11:44 even if they had provided further bs 8414 test evidence in in respect of new particular systems

00:11:49 systems have assisted nhbc with projects that had already been signed off or were in the process of being considered unless their systems were precisely the same

00:12:00 same the information from kingspan was requested to support the changes made to the bba certificate in 2014 because that did make it clear that it limited its use and we wanted further test data to

00:12:14 use and we wanted further test data to support the ongoing use of kingsman that i understand but but did i take it from that evidence that the meeting with kingspan would not enlighten you as to the historic position before the change in the bba certificate you weren't

00:12:26 in the bba certificate you weren't interested in that we we were interested and we asked questions and i believe that was um the topics of discussion that steve evans had with kingsman it comes back to a

00:12:37 had with kingsman it comes back to a question i asked you just now and indeed asked you yesterday how would a meeting with kingspan even if they were to provide further test evidence in respect of different systems for the future have answered the problem

00:12:49 for the future have answered the problem about

00:12:50 about 12.7 which had existed historically i think as as i mentioned yesterday the the concern with the certificate wasn't just the the element around 12.7 that's

00:13:02 just the the element around 12.7 that's the element i'm asking you about just to focus on that how would going to kingspan and asking them about asking them about anything have assisted with the historical problem that you were prepared to proceed to permit your bcos to sign off

00:13:15 proceed to permit your bcos to sign off buildings as compliant based on that based on the reference to 12.7 in the erstwhile bba certificate and the condition that allowed reference

00:13:26 and the condition that allowed reference back to the manufacturer so that it was the two elements in in conjunction that were being reviewed and discussed with kingspan because they were both equally important

00:13:39 just but they're separate and i don't to prolong this line of examination of you ms marshall but i want you if you can to separate them out

00:13:48 them out so first

00:13:49 so first how would asking kingspan what would what did you expect to get from kingspan in these meetings about 12.7 and how it could come about that a

00:14:00 12.7 and how it could come about that a phenolic insulation could be signed off as to as compliant with 12.7 i obviously wasn't at the meetings but

00:14:10 but my feedback or the feedback from the meetings was the both points were discussed

00:14:16 discussed it wasn't one point or the other it was the entire um composition of the certificate that was being discussed with kingspan not just one element of it let's continue with the email in the

00:14:28 let's continue with the email in the next paragraph you say there's no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out

00:14:39 out now just keep that sentence in your in your mind miss marshall if you will and then it goes on kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters if they're not

00:14:50 for use over 18 meters if they're not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as bca and the fire and rescue service although

00:15:02 and the fire and rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions now i'm going to come back to that in a moment but let's just look at nhb 50715 please

00:15:13 50715 please this is an email

00:15:19 which if you look at the bottom of your screen you can see comes from steve evans to you with the draft in it we looked at that yesterday yes and

00:15:31 if you look at the email above that it says slightly amended draft yes yes

00:15:39 and if you look lower down page one on to page two scroll onto page two you can see how you've amended it

00:15:51 you scroll to page two

00:15:57 and there's the amendment well sorry there is some text in red is the text in red the the addition by way of amendment that you made

00:16:09 i don't believe i made the amendment i believe steve evans made the amendment

00:16:15 right so can you tell us then looking at let's start with page one please

00:16:28 a foot of page one over to page two

00:16:36 and there's the rest of it on the screen can you tell us which parts you amended

00:16:43 i don't believe i am ended i think steve sent through an original

00:16:49 original and then amended his original with an updated

00:16:54 updated draft

00:16:56 well then what did you send back to him when you sent when you

00:17:03 when you i see i'm sorry so the slightly amended draft

00:17:07 draft was done by him is this right after a discussion with you yes

00:17:11 you yes i think we we probably would have had a discussion well can you account for why there is an amendment that he's sending you unless there had been a discussion

00:17:26 no i assume we had a discussion around it

00:17:29 it and going back to page two if we can please penultimate paragraph the words in red there was that

00:17:34 was that sentence there put in there as a result of a discussion that you had with steve evans before he sent this back to you

00:17:43 quite probably yes right

00:17:50 whose idea was it to tell brian martin in this response that there was no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k-15

00:18:01 which have been built with kingspan k-15 are at risk at this time

00:18:08 i think from the discussions that

00:18:12 that could we go back to the original email from brian martin please

00:18:20 the original email from brian martin is the 2nd of july you want to see that one yes please

00:18:27 yes i can do that nhb50712

00:18:42 uh and i'm so sorry we'll need to head down

00:18:45 down to uh page uh

00:18:49 uh i'm sorry sorry i've given you the wrong reference

00:19:01 yes that's right seven one two page three please that's the one on the screen now so you that that's what has come to you and this is what this response is

00:19:20 i think the the addition was to address the observations within brian's email around several buildings have been erected

00:19:31 erected and what we wanted to get across was that

00:19:35 was that the situation prior to 2014 and also the situation where we got to with kingspan in 2014 but confirmation that there weren't any projects

00:19:48 that there weren't any projects post first of january 14 that had been accepted

00:19:58 was that right is it was it a fact that in that seven month period none of your building control officers had signed uh a certificate certifying as compliant

00:20:10 uh a certificate certifying as compliant a building over 18 meters containing k15 in its external wall buildup for projects submitted after the first of january 14 yes that's not what you said you said the situation prior to

00:20:21 said you said the situation prior to 2014.

00:20:23 2014. uh

00:20:24 uh well i'd understand the period after 2014 in relation to new new projects or projects in build of course you've made that clear yes but what are you telling us are you saying that you wanted to get across simply

00:20:37 that you wanted to get across simply that fact

00:20:38 that fact yes

00:20:39 yes but how do you get that let's get back to the email that i'm on please which is nhb50715

00:20:48 red sentence how do you get that idea out of the red sentence

00:21:00 because those prior to 2014 had a bba certificate those post 2014 hadn't been completed where's that forgive me it says i'll read it to you

00:21:11 forgive me it says i'll read it to you there's no reason to suspect the buildings which have been built with kingsman k-15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that testing carried out to date does not bear this out because paul's there where is the

00:21:22 because paul's there where is the assertion that you say you were trying to get across uh that there had been no uh sign-offs uh on post 1 of january 2014

00:21:34 1 of january 2014 buildings

00:21:36 buildings i think it's in the preceding paragraphs i'm not asking you about the preceding paragraphs ms marshall i'm asking you about this sentence which came to be added

00:21:45 added now i'm going to i'm going to i'm going to focus you on that whose idea was it to tell brian martin the following there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at

00:21:56 built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out whose idea was it to tell him that i think it was a discussion point that steve evans and i had

00:22:08 steve evans and i had the

00:22:08 the the information in the earlier body of the email sets out the background to 2013

00:22:16 2013 and 2014

00:22:17 and 2014 and that's the summary so i think it needs to be read in conjunction with the earlier content within the email well

00:22:26 well what do you mean by buildings that have been built

00:22:30 what buildings all buildings historically back to 2005.

00:22:40 yes right

00:22:42 right so

00:22:43 so you're telling him that there's no reason to suspect is this right that a building over 18 meters containing kingspan k15 signed off by your bcos in 2012.

00:22:54 2012. for example were at risk yes because they would have been assessed in accordance with the bba certificate well

00:23:06 given that the i think hundreds of buildings that had used k-15 above 80 meters had not used it in the one sole single specified tested construction which the bba certificate

00:23:18 which the bba certificate spelt out how could you possibly say there was no reason to suspect risk

00:23:26 again on the basis of a valid bba certificate well again ms marshall i don't think you say that you don't say we've come to the conclusion

00:23:37 we've come to the conclusion that

00:23:38 that buildings historically built with k-15 are free of risk because we have a piece of paper saying that it complies with 12.7 and contact the manufacturer do you

00:23:50 the manufacturer do you i think the the last sentence of the paragraph at the top of the page sets out the basis that nhbc building control services accepted the use of k-15 indeed it does

00:24:01 k-15 indeed it does and you thought did you that that meant there was no risk or no reason to suspect risk even though by now the certificate had changed

00:24:13 yes really yes really

00:24:18 when it says that the issue is just that testing to date doesn't bear this out

00:24:24 you were i think accepting weren't you that the nhbc at that time had no test evidence to support the use of k-15 over 18 meters on any existing or planned building

00:24:38 the test evidence would have been the original test data

00:24:43 test data from

00:24:44 from 2005. yes

00:24:47 2005. yes and

00:24:48 and and

00:24:49 and the the promises from kingspan about their testing program on a variety of wall makeups that would add to that database yeah but there was no test

00:25:00 database yeah but there was no test evidence to bear out the absence of risk that's what you're saying and

00:25:08 i'm asking you whether you were implicitly at least accepting that nhbc had no evidence no test evidence to support the use of k-15 on any existing or planned building because none

00:25:20 because none of those buildings used exactly the same build up as had been used in the 2005 test

00:25:26 test no but our acceptance as i mentioned previously was on the basis of a valid bba certificate for those projects pre-2013

00:25:36 why did the absence of testing not pose a risk

00:25:42 at this stage as i've mentioned kingspan were committing to carrying out significant tests on a number of war makeups that would have added to that

00:25:53 makeups that would have added to that and then allowed the configuration to be accepted in accordance with the bba certificate

00:26:03 what was the point of having tests and classifications if you could just assume that a product was safe

00:26:09 was safe in a tall building without any tests well there wasn't an assumption it was based on reliable third-party certification

00:26:24 which i understand that answer you say there's no reason to suspect that the buildings which have been built with k-15 aren't risk at this time it's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out it it

00:26:36 it it it's the just that i'm having trouble with

00:26:39 with was that not a critical distinction if if there's no testing carried out to date to support the absence of risk then you can't rule it out can you

00:26:55 i don't think the wording is it could certainly be improved but the way that i'm reading that is we've set out the background to why buildings were accepted prior to

00:27:06 why buildings were accepted prior to 2014.

00:27:07 2014. we've set out that those buildings that are being um designed post 2014 there is no risk because they haven't been constructed

00:27:19 been constructed oh that's not what you say no you don't say it's not there's no reason well let me put the point i'm putting to you the difference between this sentence and what you're now telling us miss marshall you don't say

00:27:30 you don't say to mr martin there's no reason to suspect that the buildings currently in build which propose kingspan k15 are at risk

00:27:37 risk you could say that yes and say there's going to be further testing uh in the future that's one thing but you don't say that what you're telling him is that there's no reason to suspect that the legacy of buildings going back

00:27:49 that the legacy of buildings going back many years which contain k-15 are at risk

00:27:53 risk and that can't be right given the fact given not least the fact that there was no testing to support it i'm just asking you to accept a simple proposition yeah i accept the wording

00:28:04 proposition yeah i accept the wording could be clearer but this was a carefully constructed email in response to a senior official in government after a number of days of consideration and after consideration by you and mr

00:28:15 and after consideration by you and mr evans and an amendment what's the why was there this lack of clarity that you now tell us about

00:28:26 i think that when this was written it wasn't intended to go through um

00:28:37 it was written to inform brian in relation to his inquiry and to give him background context and our current understanding and i fully accept that it could

00:28:50 and i fully accept that it could the wording could have been clearer

00:28:54 looking at the second part of that sentence

00:28:57 sentence uh it's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out

00:29:01 out kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will and then you say this prove the suitability of the material

00:29:08 material for use over 18 meters for use over 18 meters now we i think established yesterday that you understood at the time that the bsa414 test was a system test yes yes

00:29:21 bsa414 test was a system test yes yes yes

00:29:22 yes so how could further testing to bs 8414 possibly have served to prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters

00:29:33 18 meters in the configurations that are tested well it doesn't say that is it no and i fully accept that the wording isn't as clear as it could be

00:29:45 how would further testing to bs8414 which you were waiting for have shown that it was generically safe for use over 18 meters it wouldn't would it it wouldn't no but and but you say so don't

00:29:57 wouldn't no but and but you say so don't you

00:29:59 you the suitability of material for use over 18 meters

00:30:02 18 meters in the tested configuration which again isn't in the statement but is is our understanding i just wonder why the wording

00:30:13 i just wonder why the wording was quite so different from your understanding at the time

00:30:17 i don't think the wording is different it's not as explicit as it could be you see it wasn't the core of the problem

00:30:24 problem which had come from wintec which you'd understood and which option three in part was designed to to solve the kingspan k15 was on all kinds of buildings across the country and had

00:30:36 buildings across the country and had been historically because

00:30:39 because it had been presented as suitable for use over 18 meters without regard to the fact that it had to be of exactly the same configuration as that tested that was the core of the problem

00:30:50 was the core of the problem and i i'd like you to explain to us why the nub of the problem isn't reflected in that sentence you've fallen for exactly the same problem and perpetuated it that king spanner introduced originally

00:31:07 could you repeat the question given i'll make it a shorter question given that the historical problem was that kingspan k15 could only be used in configurations in exactly the same

00:31:19 in configurations in exactly the same form as that tested but it had been sold on a far more a far wider range of constructions why did you not choose your words with complete care and

00:31:30 choose your words with complete care and make it clear to him that it was only going to be accepted on buildings which were exactly the same as those tested in these pro in these promised tests as opposed to using the generic words for use over 18 meters

00:31:43 generic words for use over 18 meters do you understand the question i do understand the question and i think the the content of the entire body of the email sets that out but i i fully accept that the wording

00:31:54 but i i fully accept that the wording could have been improved i mean can we agree at least this that you didn't think at the time that kingspan were planning on testing to 841 for every single build up on which k15 either had been used historically over 18 meters

00:32:07 been used historically over 18 meters the hundreds that had or every single build up that was in build

00:32:13 no no

00:32:16 now we've seen that you'd been advised by your fire engineer john lewis in november 2013 that you should not be accepting k-15 other than in external wall buildups

00:32:30 other than in external wall buildups identical to the buildup tested yes we saw that yesterday yes yes so why in the light of that warning from your own resident fire engineer did you continue

00:32:41 resident fire engineer did you continue to accept it

00:32:47 again on the basis of a valid bba certificate that covered its historic use and the ongoing discussions we were having with kingspan to address our

00:32:58 having with kingspan to address our concerns in relation to the 2014 certificate do you accept that reading these sentences now sitting there each of those two sentences is really quite absurd

00:33:12 i accept it could be improved did they not strike you as as you put it improvable at the time they went in in red

00:33:22 no not at the time how carefully did you consider these red sentences that stick out in this draft

00:33:33 it would have been in relation to the question that brian asked and were we providing

00:33:38 providing a sufficient answer i'm going to suggest two things to you ms marshall and then we move on first do you accept that it was your responsibility as head of technical services to make the call to stop

00:33:50 services to make the call to stop accepting k-15 and you didn't do it

00:33:56 i don't accept that well sorry i accept that it would have been my responsibility to take a decision absolutely um i don't accept that we continued accepting k-15 on projects post 2014

00:34:09 accepting k-15 on projects post 2014 because at this stage there wasn't any projects that were completed with k-15 would it be fair to describe the position in july 2015 as

00:34:20 position in july 2015 as the past is the past bba certificate and the future is wait and see

00:34:28 no

00:34:33 did you decide not to call a halt to using k-15 because it would call into question the many historic buildings in respect of which nhbc had accepted as compliant

00:34:44 which nhbc had accepted as compliant k-15 above 18 meters no

00:34:48 no let's turn to the combustible cladding review in 2015. uh do you know why it was called the combustible cladding review um no

00:34:59 um no what were the products that were the focus of the review uh the main product was k-15

00:35:04 was k-15 and the later bba certificate right not

00:35:09 right not cladding panels or did it include a review of cladding panels as well that was that was undertaken as part of the review yes now let's go to your statement please page 26 paragraph 107

00:35:24 you say that the review referred to was undertaken to assess the implications of the change to the bba certificate and the projects affected if the bba certificate was

00:35:35 affected if the bba certificate was deemed not to be adequate this occurred in 2015 not 2014. now you're referring i think there to the change to the bba certificate that

00:35:46 the change to the bba certificate that occurred in december 2013 aren't you correct

00:35:49 correct and that's the one that removed the reference to 12.7 and consult the manufacturer exactly just to be clear for those listening why did it take until 2015 for a review to be done

00:36:02 there was ongoing engagement with kingspan from january 14. there was

00:36:08 there was lots of discussions and promises made in relation to testing programs time scales commitment to undertake tests and

00:36:21 commitment to undertake tests and accepting that testing does take some time

00:36:25 time we allowed time for kingspan to gather further evidence we did get to a point via the regular meetings that steve had with kingspan

00:36:36 meetings that steve had with kingspan that

00:36:37 that we were pushing for testing testing wasn't becoming apparent we were pushing for further evidence from either

00:36:48 further evidence from either arabs or bre and when it got to the stage where that wasn't forthcoming and projects were advancing we took the decision that this needed a review

00:37:00 needed a review when you say in your statement that this paragraph

00:37:03 paragraph that the purpose of the review was to assess the implications of the change to the bba certificate and the projects affected if the bba certificate was deemed not to be adequate

00:37:16 what do you mean by that the the changes to the certificate and the time scale so pre-2013 being covered by the bba certificate

00:37:27 being covered by the bba certificate post 2014 not being covered when you say if the bba certificate was deemed not to be adequate what do you mean the the wording within the certificate um

00:37:38 um the process of deeming it not to be adequate what's that about the removal of the reference to the um certificate holder

00:37:46 holder would mean that the certificate was then limited to the single test that was covered by the later bba certificate i'm sorry my fault i'm not asking you the clearest of questions

00:37:58 clearest of questions you say if the bba certificate was deemed not to be adequate in what eventuality would

00:38:06 would the certificate be deemed not to be adequate

00:38:10 adequate that it didn't cover the scenario so who would do the deeming the surveyors assessing the projects against the latest bba certificate relevant for that project

00:38:24 so and which bba certificate are you referring to i

00:38:28 to i i had

00:38:29 i had understood that that was a reference to the

00:38:33 the certificate that had pertained until december 2013 is that not right no that's the certificate post 2014.

00:38:41 2014. what was regarded as what was the problem with that certificate the removal of the clause that allowed reference back to the certificate holder was there

00:38:51 was there forgive me i i hadn't realized that that was a problem was there a problem in removing that clause that nhbc thought existed yes

00:39:01 yes why

00:39:03 why the the removal of the clause then limited the use of k-15 to the one tested scenario within the bba certificate indeed but what was why would the bba certificate which did not

00:39:14 would the bba certificate which did not contain

00:39:15 contain consult the manufacturer provision um be at risk of being as you put it deemed not to be adequate because it would only reference the tested system and the limitations on the

00:39:26 tested system and the limitations on the use of the bba certificate were narrowed oh i see so you buy adequate you mean enough

00:39:32 enough to allow a building control officer to sign off k15 yes i see

00:39:41 and let's go to your statement please 109 at the top of page 26 just below this steve evans you say pulled together a team of specialists across nhbc including john lewis film

00:39:52 across nhbc including john lewis film phil pettinger dave alexander white and gary jarvis it was a case of going through a database and investigating which projects since 2014 has due products such as k-15 and rs-5000

00:40:03 such as k-15 and rs-5000 the purpose of the review was to make sure that the projects complied with nhbc's policy of using one of the routes outlined in the bca guidance note as detailed in steve evan's email 13th of february 2015.

00:40:15 13th of february 2015. so it was the purpose of the review to assess the implications of the change to the bba certificate or was it to make sure the projects complied with technical guidance note 18

00:40:28 complied with technical guidance note 18 which was it

00:40:33 sorry could you repeat the question yeah certainly what was the purpose of the review

00:40:37 review to assess

00:40:39 to assess the implications of the change to the bba certificate as you say in 107 or was it to make sure projects complied with technical guidance note 18

00:40:50 with technical guidance note 18 as you say in 109. it was both

00:40:57 was the decision to conduct that review made in discussions with the nhbc board yes

00:41:03 yes what was the reasoning at board level so far as you could detect it for the review

00:41:09 review the

00:41:11 the communications with kingspan had come to

00:41:16 come to a point where there was frustration that information wasn't being provided and i believe that steve evans and graham perrier briefed myself and mark jones

00:41:28 myself and mark jones in the i think it was the october 2014 about where the process had got to that

00:41:37 that that was

00:41:39 that was that instigated communication with arabs and bre to

00:41:45 to validate the claims being made by kingspan

00:41:49 kingspan those meetings took place towards the end of 2014 and confirmed that neither party were in a position to offer what kingspan had promised

00:42:00 promised at that point um it was decided between myself and mark jones um he was head of standards at that stage that it needed to be escalated to the executive director and the main nhbc

00:42:13 the executive director and the main nhbc board

00:42:16 board were you party to the discussions at board level no

00:42:23 no do you know from what you know whether there was discussion aboard level of the corporate risks to an hbc arising from signing office compliant

00:42:35 arising from signing office compliant buildings over 18 meters which had used non-compliant combustible materials in the external wall buildup i believe that was discussed how do you what's the basis of your belief

00:42:46 belief um i

00:42:47 um i think i've seen some of the minutes of the board meeting right and

00:42:55 was there a discussion about the the possibility of this being a significant legacy problem

00:43:04 i believe the report that was presented to the board which was a there was a report on combustible materials that set out the timeline of events with all of the interactions with

00:43:15 with all of the interactions with kingspan and a number of recommendations and that report was put forward to the board for consideration and at that stage it set out clearly our

00:43:26 and at that stage it set out clearly our position on pre-2013 and post 2014.

00:43:31 2014. and what

00:43:32 and what was your

00:43:34 was your pre-2013 pre december 2013 position that you set out to the board in summary without the document the basis of the bba certificate

00:43:45 bba certificate right

00:43:46 right did anybody actually tell the board that there was a significant risk arising from the historical legacy

00:43:56 legacy of k-15

00:43:58 of k-15 being approved by your building control officers for use on tall buildings i think the the executive directors when they were briefed fully understood the

00:44:09 they were briefed fully understood the background and the situation and asked relevant questions

00:44:14 questions so

00:44:16 so to your knowledge and understanding at the time was your understanding that the main board the executive directors of nhbc understood

00:44:27 understood that although k-15 was a combustible material

00:44:31 material nonetheless a bba certificate said it wasn't

00:44:35 wasn't and therefore there was no legacy problem

00:44:40 to summarize yes

00:44:45 were there any out of interest were there any

00:44:47 there any fire engineers or fire experts on your board

00:44:52 board not to my knowledge so they were entirely reliant on what you were telling them the they were reliant on the feedback through the report and the briefing that was carried out to

00:45:04 and the briefing that was carried out to the executive directors by steve evans and graham perrier

00:45:24 now you say in your witness statement that the results of the review are set out in the combustible materials control table

00:45:30 table and steve evans told us in his evidence we don't need to go to it it's day two two one page nineteen lines um twenty two and onwards that that the only projects currently on it was only projects currently under

00:45:42 was only projects currently under construction all those about to start that were included in that review correct that's how you understood it is it yes yes and he also told us that the review looked at the entire wall makeup so not just insulation i think you agree with

00:45:53 just insulation i think you agree with that correct he also told us that buildings for which construction was already complete were not included in the review yes correct yes and he told us that he'd

00:46:04 yes correct yes and he told us that he'd received instructions not to include those buildings either from you or from ian davis

00:46:09 ian davis is that correct yes the instruction came on the back of the board meeting in terms of the required actions going forward did it come to him from you or did it come

00:46:21 to him from you or did it come to him from ian davis i believe it was ian davis right direct to him or there was ongoing dialogue between ian and steve because

00:46:32 dialogue between ian and steve because ian

00:46:33 ian sorry steve had been involved in all of the kingspan meetings and was taking the lead for nhbc on the review so it was in the best position to brief ian and the other executive

00:46:44 brief ian and the other executive directors on what had happened previously yes and you were privy a party to those briefings briefings sessions or notes were you not all of them no right why is that why are

00:46:55 all of them no right why is that why are you to some extent not in that loop um because

00:46:59 because steve was

00:47:00 steve was a an experienced trusted member of the team uh more than capable of dealing with the issue and more than capable of reporting to the executive directors and was the reason that the decision was

00:47:11 was the reason that the decision was made

00:47:12 made well prior question was the decision made by the board after discussion not to include pre-december 2013 certifications i believe so right and

00:47:23 and was the reason that the board made that decision

00:47:26 decision uh the one that you've given us that there was a bba certificate that would have informed their thinking yes well what else would have informed their thinking the um the position in relation to once

00:47:38 the um the position in relation to once a project is completed for building control purposes there are limited powers that a building control body can introduce

00:47:47 introduce um the the completion certificate concludes their role right to your knowledge was it any ingredient of the thinking leading to the decision that nhbc

00:47:57 that nhbc might have some general responsibility to warn its historic customers who put up tall buildings for people to live in that those buildings had contained in their walls a non-compliant combustible

00:48:10 walls a non-compliant combustible insulation material did that inform the thinking i believe that would have been discussed at the board what's the basis of that belief i think there was something in the minutes right do you and and though all that was

00:48:21 right do you and and though all that was discussed is this right the decision was taken at board level not to tell nhbc's historical customers that there was a legacy of tall buildings out there with people living in them which contained combustible

00:48:32 combustible insulation in the external wall buildup which had been accepted on the basis of a valid certificate but i think the answer is yes bva certificate yes

00:48:46 now is it right that by early 2016 jumping forward a year were you aware that there were many

00:48:57 were you aware that there were many buildings over 18 meters with acm with 100 pe core

00:49:04 in the tall buildings population in general in general um i think we were aware of some projects

00:49:15 i think we were aware of some projects that were being proposed with

00:49:18 with acm

00:49:21 were you aware that there were some at least in the industry who regarded that fact as a the fact of the presence of acm so ubiquitously as a grave concern

00:49:35 there was discussions with the likes of arab that

00:49:41 that were

00:49:43 were because we engaged them on a project review

00:49:47 review um that identified their concerns and supported our concerns in relation to the use of pe called acm can i show you what john lewis told the inquiry on day 225

00:50:01 so yesterday please yesterday's transcript and i'd like to take you please to page 44.

00:50:17 uh and on page 44

00:50:22 at line six he says

00:50:24 he says at this point in time and this is post 15 review we would have which would have picked up everything that was in build up to that point we didn't do a separate review you know in february 16 to repeat what had already been done that wasn't

00:50:36 what had already been done that wasn't carried out but our surveyors you know we were saying this clearly the ones the major projects team was then put together the major the large buildings was then being dealt with by a much smaller pool of people and they were all

00:50:47 smaller pool of people and they were all well aware of the risks of pe called acm question but you are now well aware of at least the possibility that there was a legacy of nhbc building control officer approved buildings which had acmp equal on the exterior

00:50:59 acmp equal on the exterior answer we were aware that there were a number of buildings that had it on yes and you didn't do anything to alert the buildings to the dangers answer well i mean i know you don't like me to say that this was not my role but

00:51:11 me to say that this was not my role but it wasn't my role you know that i would have that would have been left to people above me to instruct or to do that so me personally no i did not question no but did you advise your seniors that this should be done given

00:51:23 seniors that this should be done given the coalescence of knowledge as we can see from nick jenkins email early in 2016. did you say to steve evans or diane marshall for example look there is a legacy problem out there there are buildings we've approved which contain

00:51:35 buildings we've approved which contain pe called acm which is dangerous or potentially dangerous we should tell the building owners did you do that answer i didn't spell it out because they were as aware as i was that these buildings were

00:51:46 aware as i was that these buildings were there

00:51:49 and then i didn't and then they might say well we were reliant on you as the resident fire engineer what would you say to them answer they were aware that these buildings were there because we'd identified a number of them in the when

00:52:01 identified a number of them in the when we did the 2015 review we'd highlighted the fact you know that we put those as high risk in the 2015 review you know they'd been at the well we hadn't done the cladding facades conference but they knew my thoughts on all of this steve

00:52:12 knew my thoughts on all of this steve was definitely was well aware of the risks of 100 pe called acm it was you know by that point we were banging on about it every time we discussed this with any of our surveying teams it was not well yes they were well aware

00:52:25 it was not well yes they were well aware now i've read you quite a long passage and there may be parts of which you disagree with but would you agree with would you disagree with anything that mr lewis told us yesterday yes what which parts um if you could

00:52:38 yes what which parts um if you could scroll back up please

00:52:42 to page 44 please

00:52:53 i think the the answer to at line six the 2015 review when it was carried out actually went predated the change in bba

00:53:07 actually went predated the change in bba certificate and did all projects in build both post 2013 and post 2014. that project review was an opportunity to look at how

00:53:20 was an opportunity to look at how our surveyors had assessed both the issue around the insulation but also how they had applied the requirements of the cladding material

00:53:31 requirements of the cladding material so what we talked about yesterday on filler etc those aspects were also assessed to see that surveyors were applying our understanding of the

00:53:43 applying our understanding of the broader definition what did come to light through that review

00:53:48 review was that

00:53:49 was that in

00:53:52 i think there was a split between the building control projects and the warranty only projects and what did come to light through that review was that on the warranty only projects

00:54:03 projects our

00:54:04 our project managers who looked after the warranty

00:54:07 warranty weren't checking fire safety that would have been down to the building control body they would have been assessing other aspects of the cladding system in relation to standards so drained and vented and other aspects and what did

00:54:18 vented and other aspects and what did come to light was in those situations we weren't aware of the fire safety risk on warranty only schemes and by doing the review it introduced

00:54:29 and by doing the review it introduced through the the b 500 guidance the fact that we would take that approach on all warranty schemes going forward to ensure that not only the building

00:54:40 to ensure that not only the building control body were looking at fire safety but nhbc were considering the implications of the fire safety and assessing the cladding material

00:54:51 assessing the cladding material is there anything else in what i've read to you from mr lewis's evidence with which you would disagree i think that context sort of puts this into place because yes there were high

00:55:02 into place because yes there were high risk

00:55:03 risk and from my recollection majority of those were in relation to warranty only projects are you saying that there were there were no projects at all on which building control services were provided

00:55:15 building control services were provided by an hbc which featured an aluminium called a pe called aluminium rain screen without interrogating the spreadsheet i couldn't say for definite but certainly

00:55:26 couldn't say for definite but certainly the the feedback from the review team was that all of those projects were assessed

00:55:33 assessed and where they were assessed and we we didn't feel that they met the criteria they would be looked at through an option three or an option four report

00:55:44 four report now let's

00:55:45 now let's turn to option three um we we haven't gone through the 2014 edition issue nought of a technical guidance note 18 but let's look at issue one um

00:55:56 note 18 but let's look at issue one um which was published in june 2015. um

00:56:00 um and again i take it you're familiar with the document um and can i take it that you know that there were two principal amendments made first in relation to those people who could complete option three reports that

00:56:11 could complete option three reports that was widened yes yes yes and secondly adding option four the acceptance of holistic fire engineering reports yes yes yes now let's look at the first of those um page

00:56:22 let's look at the first of those um page 33 of your statement paragraph 146 please um you say there a further amendment to the technical guidance note issue one was to widen the bodies who could provide option three assessments

00:56:34 could provide option three assessments in issue nought this was limited to a ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire but in the 2015 bca guidance note that was amended to a suitably qualified fire specialist i

00:56:45 suitably qualified fire specialist i understand the reason for this was because the amended wording was consistent with approved document b now the last sentence there i understand the reason for this was because the amended wording was consistent with the

00:56:57 amended wording was consistent with the proved document b what does it mean what does that sentence mean that the

00:57:04 that the the change in wording to option three was updated to reflect the content of the approved document around the ability of those undertaking

00:57:16 around the ability of those undertaking option three reports or extended applications are you saying that the unamended form of words in issue nought was not consistent with adb

00:57:28 from recollection the original edition was

00:57:33 was the

00:57:34 the ucas test testing bodies and

00:57:39 and when it was revisited by the bca technical group i understand that that they

00:57:45 they reviewed that against the actual wording within the approved document

00:57:52 is in fact what you mean here is that

00:57:55 is that despite the uh the widening of the bodies who could provide option three assessments it was still consistent with the proved document b

00:58:06 yes yes i see and now steve evans said in his statement and there's no reason to go to it unless you want to see it but but the reason for the amen amendment was due to the backlog of work at the bre

00:58:17 the backlog of work at the bre uh and

00:58:19 uh and that is something that steve evans told john lewis about according to john lewis as well his evidence at day two two four page one one one nine four again no need to go to it as a general proposition do

00:58:30 to go to it as a general proposition do you accept that the reason for the amendment was due to the backlog of work at the bre i've no reason to to question what steve evans has said no but from your own knowledge

00:58:41 has said no but from your own knowledge i wouldn't have known by i didn't engage with bre so i wouldn't i wouldn't be aware of that firsthand right did you ask steve evans or john lewis what the reason for that amendment was no that they would have stated that when they

00:58:52 they would have stated that when they were discussing this with the bca technical group i would have assumed i see did you yourself not engage with the reason

00:58:59 reason no it was it was led by the bca technical group yes did you not want to understand why it was that this select very small pool of experts who had previously been identified as those fit

00:59:10 previously been identified as those fit to carry out options three reports was now being widened i think the discussions would have been held in the technical group and then when it was reported to the bca executive

00:59:22 reported to the bca executive um in terms of an update there was there was no nobody that raised any observations around that wording well you say it was led by the bca technical group it was drafted by john lewis your john lewis

00:59:34 john lewis your john lewis yes on behalf of steve evans who was the bca chair sorry the bca technical group chairman and utilized whatever resources were necessary to support the work of the bca yes but given that it had come

00:59:46 yes but given that it had come from within your organization were you not interested to understand what

00:59:53 what lay behind the amendment well i would have found that out once it was presented to the bca executive assuming it went through suitable challenge with the technical group

01:00:09 i think you say in your statement the paragraph 174 that that the historical experience of these desktop assessments up to this time june 2015 had been substandard some of them

01:00:21 2015 had been substandard some of them had been substandard yes yes there was an issue with some of the quality of some of the submissions yes why did you think it was all right to widen the pool of those completing these reports when

01:00:32 of those completing these reports when thus far some of them had fallen below the requisite standards you'd expected that wasn't my decision no maybe not but but what was in your head can you explain yourself why the pool was

01:00:45 explain yourself why the pool was widened given that consideration only that it reflected the wording within the approved document

01:00:54 right but you didn't have to widen the pool uh just because the approved document said that you could on your reading

01:01:00 reading did you

01:01:02 did you or did the bca no no

01:01:07 no no now you were on the bca executive board weren't you yes as such did you examine it and critique it

01:01:19 critique the amendment the amendment would have been reported to the executive by steve's regular attendance at the meetings to give an update on what the technical group were doing

01:01:30 doing and it would be challenged by member bodies of the bca executive but on the basis that it had already been through a robust process within the

01:01:41 through a robust process within the technical group and the technical group having a number of members from both acai and labc in reviewing the content and the detail what was the robust process

01:01:53 what was the robust process within the technical group well there was there was dis sorry i i can't speak with authority because i'm not part of the technical group but i would have assumed that that would have been open discussion debate

01:02:05 would have been open discussion debate and challenge

01:02:09 what was the process whereby this amendment was considered i'm not asking you for the precise discussions i just want to know the process

01:02:18 any member of the bca representative bodies could raise a question on any complex technical or procedural matter

01:02:29 procedural matter that would be fed through to a working group

01:02:33 group on a technical matter it would be the bca technical group they would investigate the matter they would um come up with a consensus view on a way forward and produce guidance notes

01:02:46 a way forward and produce guidance notes that would then be published and available to all the representative bodies are you moving on with the next question are you able to tell us how in the instance of this amendment that process worked

01:03:00 well as described but but from your own knowledge

01:03:05 knowledge is that how it worked yes i would have seen steve provide an update to the bca executive yeah and steve was a member of the bc of the bca wasn't he the bca

01:03:17 the bc of the bca wasn't he the bca technical group yes yes he was the chairman and it came through to the executive board yes yes yes and at that stage did you yourself ask those sitting around the table

01:03:28 ask those sitting around the table notionally or otherwise what the what the basis for this amendment was and the reason for it

01:03:35 i believe it was explained by steve when he was presenting the updated technical guidance note and did you not ask the question well

01:03:46 and did you not ask the question well why are we widening the pool of those eligible to perform these desktop assessments in circumstances where we have reservations about their quality no why is that

01:03:57 no why is that because it reflected the the wording within the approved document is that all yes

01:04:05 just because the quality of what we were receiving wasn't in all cases to the right standard that that wouldn't mean that we would accept them

01:04:14 them they would still be challenged they would still be analyzed and assessed on a case-by-case basis so regardless of who was submitting these reports they would still be interrogated

01:04:28 let's look then at the discussions that were had with brian martin a little bit before this in april 2015 nhb 401057

01:04:41 this is an email exchange between nhbc and brian martin uh in that month in that year april 2015 and the first email in the chain is the second of april 2015 at the foot of page

01:04:52 second of april 2015 at the foot of page one

01:04:53 one we can go to that please you can see it's from steve evans to brian martin the copy to you graeme perrier and ian davis

01:05:01 davis update on combustible materials in the envelope of buildings over 18 meters and

01:05:08 and uh

01:05:10 uh you can

01:05:11 you can see

01:05:12 see um

01:05:14 um what he says it's quite brief but goes over the page uh i hope you're well i'm conscious we've not provided an update on our progress with the manufacturers of combustible insulation materials that are marketed as being

01:05:25 materials that are marketed as being suitable for use in buildings over 18 meters for some time and i must apologize for this but this has been an extremely complicated process in ensuring that the information we provide to our builders is correct and allows

01:05:36 to our builders is correct and allows them as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as is possible and then over the page page two he refers to previous communications written to our builder customers and

01:05:48 written to our builder customers and then refers to internal guidance in the next paragraph you can see that yes yes uh and uh then he says in this paragraph with respect to insulation type materials

01:06:00 type materials uh

01:06:01 uh of which kingspan k15 and celotex rs5000 are the most common we encounter this would mean that following options two and three from the bca guidance note and then the explainable option two and three respectively are you see that yes

01:06:15 three respectively are you see that yes uh we've also added a further option of a full fire engineered solution for the complete building and we will be taking this to the bca as a suggestion to add to the guidance note as a result of these actions

01:06:27 as a result of these actions nhbc has begun to see submissions from builders mainly following option three and then in the next paragraph he says that they've continued to liaise with kingspan and celetex etc

01:06:38 kingspan and celetex etc now

01:06:38 now the response from brian martin comes at the top of the chain and he writes as follows

01:06:45 uh thank that's the 7th of april 2015 and again copy to you thanks for this steve if there are common solutions that people are using for the quotes engineered approach i would be interested to hear about them

01:06:57 i would be interested to hear about them that it might be that we could adopt them in future editions of the a.d there does seem to have been some confusion in the market whether some polymer insulation materials are combustible or not i guess i shouldn't

01:07:08 combustible or not i guess i shouldn't be that surprised anything you can do to raise awareness has got to be a good thing is nhbc content that the existing projects you've dealt with meet these principles i understood that there had been some

01:07:19 i understood that there had been some questions raised brian

01:07:23 brian now it's the last paragraph that i want to ask you about as a fact were you content that existing projects that you dealt with had met the principles of the bca guidance note

01:07:43 [Applause] sorry could you scroll down please

01:07:49 uh yes we can scroll down thank you page two

01:08:02 i'm trying to establish if brian is asking about the principles of our policy or the bca guidance note

01:08:13 well i've read you as much as i can yes marshall i'm afraid you'll have to help me

01:08:19 you received both of these emails what did you understand he meant at the time i i thought he meant our policy and i recall

01:08:30 and i recall i

01:08:31 i think steve went back to brian to ask if there was any particular projects that brian had concerns over

01:08:42 well uh

01:08:46 did you understand but the with the word existing brian martin meant those which were already on foot before the publication of the technical guidance note 18 in june 2014.

01:09:02 so could you scroll back up please

01:09:07 it's the last sentence there

01:09:10 is nhbc content that the existing projects you've dealt with meet these principles

01:09:19 as i say i believe that steve went back to ask brian to clarify if there were any projects that he had concerns over but assuming that

01:09:30 assuming that he had

01:09:32 he had sent him a copy of the policy it would have been in the policy what what we had done yes i i'm not sure you're wrong to say that there was a later question about

01:09:42 about whether there were particular concerns that mr martin had but what i'm asking you is what you understood when you received these two emails first is the question

01:09:53 first is the question had you

01:09:54 had you met those principles had those existing projects that you dealt with met those principles

01:10:01 policy principles yes and by existing projects what did you understand mr martin to mean

01:10:16 i had i haven't given it the degree of thought that you've asked but it would have been projects that nhbc would have been involved with

01:10:29 so did nhbc's

01:10:33 nhbc's projects it had been involved with meet

01:10:38 uh the requirement or guidance of having external wall buildups of limited combustibility or an external wall buildup tested to 8414 meeting the compliance criteria of

01:10:51 8414 meeting the compliance criteria of br135

01:10:52 br135 or

01:10:53 or a satisfactory desktop assessment report using sufficient large-scale fire test data

01:11:02 from 2014 onwards yes prior to 2014 there was reliance on the product

01:11:10 product certification however some of those 2013 projects that were still in build when we carried out the review were also revisited

01:11:21 were also revisited to

01:11:22 to establish that the external cladding system had been assessed and as we discussed earlier in the last sentence he says i understood that there had been some

01:11:34 understood that there had been some questions raised

01:11:37 do you know what he was referring to no and i think that's why steve went back to him to ask if there was examples that he had concerns over

01:11:49 that he had concerns over well i think that's that's later in the piece

01:11:52 piece but

01:11:54 but did you as head of response head of building control not think it your responsibility to find out what it was what questions were being raised about the work of those in your

01:12:05 about the work of those in your department again steve evans was very capable of engaging with officials he was dealing with his project nyon on a day-to-day basis and was very

01:12:17 nyon on a day-to-day basis and was very familiar with the content and able to respond to the questions um we can't see from the documents we've had

01:12:27 had that anybody responded to this email the one i'm showing you on page one on your screen of the 7th of april 2015 do you know

01:12:37 you know if anybody from an hbc actually answered his question

01:12:43 i don't recall answering but i don't know if steve evans did

01:12:49 well on the assumption that the documents we have from nhbc are complete

01:12:56 complete there was no response to this question can you explain why

01:13:02 no

01:13:12 um now let's before the break mr chairman can i just do this email yes i think be convenient where it fits here nhb402791 please

01:13:23 nhb402791 please this is a little later in the same year miss marshall 2015 august

01:13:30 and it's uh an email if you scroll down please to um the very foot of page one you can just see it it's from this one at the top is from you to john lewis of the 7th of august

01:13:43 lewis of the 7th of august and also to steve evans copy to ian davis yes

01:13:46 davis yes and it responds if you go to page two to an email from john lewis to you and steve evans subject k15 when used with aluminium facade

01:13:58 hello both i attended a meeting with sotech on tuesday they manufacture aluminium not composite cladding systems their system holds approval when used with rockwool insulation

01:14:09 with rockwool insulation they also showed me a bs8414 part 2 test which used k15 behind a two millimeter aluminium finish which was funded equally between kingspan sotek and another party i forget who in 2008 it

01:14:20 another party i forget who in 2008 it failed within 15 minutes with flames coming off the top of the test rig a few months ago sotech got a call from kingspan telling them that they'd take legal action against them if they released the test report

01:14:31 released the test report my problem is that one kingspan have never mentioned it two kingspan have been reluctant to our request that they undertake a test using aluminium three we've seen assessments from bre which are based on the

01:14:42 from bre which are based on the terracotta and eternity board tests and the results extrapolated to aluminium with the conclusion that in their view it should perform acceptably when tested to bsa414

01:14:52 to bsa414 either bre have ignored or been instructed to ignore the earlier sotek test or as it was some time ago the current staff were unaware of it i know that our backs are covered by bre's assessment report but i still have

01:15:04 bre's assessment report but i still have doubts about how the fire performance of a lightweight metal has been assessed on the basis of an inert inorganic material and knowing that kingspan are wanting to cover up tests which they aren't happy

01:15:15 cover up tests which they aren't happy to share i just have a feeling that the use of an aluminium facade and k15 may not be as good as we're led to believe happy and then if you go to page three happy to elaborate more on tuesday

01:15:28 first do you recall any discussions within nhbc arising from the contents of mr lewis's email to you

01:15:36 we had a meeting on the tuesday uh john steve and myself to review all of the um escalations and option three reports

01:15:47 um escalations and option three reports and i believe we discussed the content of this at that meeting

01:15:54 and you discussed the content what was the upshot of

01:15:58 upshot of that discussion i believe that john lewis was going to go away and do some further research on this matter and and engage with

01:16:10 on this matter and and engage with either

01:16:12 either bre or

01:16:14 bre or xover i believe

01:16:25 and did you

01:16:28 did you do anything further other than asking him to go away and research it

01:16:34 no he he went away to find out the basis of some of the um analysis that had been provided and

01:16:43 and from what i understand with his engagement through x-over obtained some reassurance around the way that the

01:16:54 the way that the option three reports were being assessed

01:17:00 did you report these concerns to ian davis

01:17:04 davis i think ian davis was copied in

01:17:13 he was copied into the top email you're quite right he was but did you report them to him after the discussion on tuesday

01:17:22 i probably would have updated him yes but he was aware of the issue because of being copied into the email i know but you said you then had a meeting on the tuesday and did you update in davis after the meeting on tuesday i would

01:17:33 after the meeting on tuesday i would have done yes you would have done and what what about the nhbc board was it to your knowledge made alert to this potential problem what was the date of this email sorry uh

01:17:45 what was the date of this email sorry uh well 6th of august it comes to you and steve evans and 7th of august is when uh you

01:17:55 you send it on to john lewis and steve evans copy to ian davis there were regular updates provided to the board through 2015 i think the date after this one would have been

01:18:07 the date after this one would have been september

01:18:13 as a result at least of this information did you make any decision to review the which buildings you had previously approved or had granted warranties on

01:18:24 approved or had granted warranties on which contained lightweight metal as the cladding and k15 is the insulation that would have been part of the review meeting on the tuesday as a

01:18:35 review meeting on the tuesday as a matter of course because we were going through

01:18:37 through project by project i see so you sat down and looked to see which those projects were yes there was a master spreadsheet that that steve evans managed that

01:18:49 that steve evans managed that captured all of the escalations yes and those were all those in build post or those which the initial notice had been received after the 1st of january 2014. correct although there was a number

01:19:01 correct although there was a number of

01:19:02 of projects in build prior to 2014 that were also considered right and what about those that have been completed before 31st of december 2013. no no

01:19:12 no and again why no decision to look at those given given what you had now learned from satech

01:19:20 it required further investigation in terms of the statements made by sotek they needed to be validated and that's what john lewis was tasked to do

01:19:31 was tasked to do to go away and find out more about the basis of some of the option three reports that were being prepared by the likes of x over and bre

01:19:42 likes of x over and bre thank you uh mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well i think it's time we had to break this marshall we'll stop there we'll resume at 25 to 12 please and again please don't talk to

01:19:53 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're away from the room thank you

01:20:04 thank you 25 to 12 please

01:35:36 would you ask marshall to come back in please okay

01:35:50 all right miss marshall ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you ms martial i'd like now to look at the 2016 guidance note the common constructions note uh

01:36:03 note the common constructions note uh entitled in full the acceptability of common wall constructions containing combustible materials in high-rise buildings

01:36:09 buildings now i think you will agree that this was released at a conference in london on the 7th of july 2016. correct yes

01:36:18 yes and that was at nhbc's offices in your statement can we go to it it's a paragraph 178 at the bottom of page 38. this is what you say about the guidance

01:36:31 this is what you say about the guidance uh underneath the heading production of the 2016 guidance note and you say this a large number of builders were using the bca guidance note and therefore putting forward options three and four reports to consider

01:36:42 reports to consider nhbc and i suspect other building control bodies was facing a significant increase in workload reviewing those reports

01:36:49 reports it was discussed internally at nhbc and we decided to hold a seminar to explain what the bca guidance note meant during the discussions prior to this seminar a document was produced in order

01:37:02 seminar a document was produced in order to look at what could be done we felt it was appropriate for nhbc to offer guidance on this that note eventually became the 2016 guidance note we considered it appropriate because we

01:37:13 we considered it appropriate because we were receiving a significant number of option three reports for very similar wall makeups as a result there was a lot of repetition and we wanted to help the industry understand nhpc's requirements

01:37:25 industry understand nhpc's requirements in terms of evidence to show compliance with the bca guidance note now you say that the purpose of the seminar was to explain what the bca

01:37:36 seminar was to explain what the bca guidance note meant had you had feedback that the bca guidance note the 2015 edition is that by now it had become

01:37:47 become was not clear and needed explanation

01:37:52 as a consequence of the work that john lewis was doing he was he was spending an awful lot of time

01:38:01 time on option three and four reports and was feeding back that the quality of those reports wasn't particularly good and that people weren't understanding

01:38:13 and that people weren't understanding the basis of how they should submit an option three and four report so this was this was done to

01:38:23 to promote

01:38:24 promote not only the bca guidance note but the regulatory position the industry view and

01:38:32 and some experts that were producing these reports in conjunction with nhbc to

01:38:38 to set out what was expected and that was the reason we wanted external speakers to come in to put things into context

01:38:50 what do you mean in that answer by promote the regulatory position the industry view brian martin coming along to talk about it with an mhclg view

01:39:01 an mhclg view on

01:39:02 on what the approved document be required and explain that to the audience and then lead into i think it was bre that followed brian martin and then x over

01:39:16 followed brian martin and then x over and

01:39:17 and steve evans did an update on the bca guidance note and then john lewis and malik kacouria did an update on the the guide that was produced

01:39:28 produced so to answer my question picking it out of the answer if i can the problem which gave rise to the 2016 guidance note is this right was that people preparing desktop

01:39:42 that people preparing desktop assessments weren't doing them well wasn't particularly good and weren't understanding the basis on how they should submit an option three report

01:39:53 should submit an option three report that was certainly um evident to us but not in all cases you know there were some good submissions there were some poor submissions right and just focusing on the words you used in the answer people weren't

01:40:04 used in the answer people weren't understanding the basis on how they should submit an option three report was it evident to you that they didn't understand what was required of them by way of

01:40:14 way of analysis methodology techniques data

01:40:19 or was it something else i think there was

01:40:23 was certainly from from feedback from john lewis there was a lack of reference to the test data that was being used but there was still

01:40:35 there was still the occasional report that

01:40:38 that was applying the limited requirements for diagram 40 and not looking at filler etc in its broadest terms oh that's interesting so some

01:40:49 terms oh that's interesting so some reports are coming back from these specialists which focused only on the class b or class naught requirement for external panels and in your mind ignoring

01:41:01 and in your mind ignoring the need for those panels to be of limited combustibility it would have been the consideration and they would have to justify how they had extrapolated any data to

01:41:14 they had extrapolated any data to include anything that varied from that standard

01:41:21 right

01:41:24 so could one summarize the the view of nhbc

01:41:30 nhbc in the summer of 2016 about the success of option three uh as

01:41:37 uh as uh

01:41:38 uh mixed qualified no i think option three worked well as long as you received a good standard report

01:41:48 report it took

01:41:49 it took several iterations in some cases to get to that standard but the process of an option three report was a

01:41:58 was a a suitable way of demonstrating compliance as long as it was done correctly

01:42:03 correctly did not the fact that there was a sufficiently significant number of option three reports coming back that needed this further work or inadequate in the ways you've identified

01:42:16 in the ways you've identified not indicate to you either that the pool of people doing them was insufficiently qualified by virtue of your amendment or

01:42:27 or wasn't wasn't possible to achieve to a sufficient degree of quality across the board

01:42:35 the variety of people that submitted the reports including qualified and experienced fire engineers would still be subject to review on a case-by-case basis and would not be

01:42:47 case-by-case basis and would not be accepted until they did achieve the required quality well that's not an answer to my question my question is this was i put it more simply come mid-16

01:42:58 come mid-16 uh why were you of the view that option three wasn't working well enough notwithstanding the purported expertise of those you had identified who could produce them no

01:43:09 no viable

01:43:11 viable option

01:43:13 option it created an awful lot of work sorry it created a lot of work in reviewing the reports but when they were to the required standard it was a adequate and acceptable route to

01:43:24 adequate and acceptable route to compliance so was the 2016 guidance a response to the lack of quality that you were seeing in the ways you've described

01:43:31 described or was it a response to the administrative burden that reviewing them had placed on your team it was a bit of both

01:43:41 did that not tell you that it it it had not been an overall success and a remedy needed to be found no this is with with any large building control

01:43:52 with with any large building control project

01:43:53 project there are

01:43:54 there are lots of in lots of bits of information that need to be provided to the building control body and the process of any building control body is to assess that information and ask for further information if it's

01:44:06 ask for further information if it's lacking that's that's a common approach within building control that very rarely do you get a full compliant design on day one and you manage it through the process of

01:44:17 manage it through the process of conditions and asking further questions so this was this was common to every aspect of the build not just fire safety so it sounds from paragraph 106.

01:44:28 so it sounds from paragraph 106. sorry 178

01:44:29 sorry 178 on page 38 the the 2016 guidance note was created as a way to cut john lewis's workload and those in his team the original discussions around the guidance note were on the basis that we

01:44:41 guidance note were on the basis that we were seeing several reports around brickwork and brickwork with a combustible insulation didn't meet option one or

01:44:52 insulation didn't meet option one or option two because there'd never been a test

01:44:55 test so that was the basis for the guidance that actually it would reduce a lot of the repetition of option three reports proving a brickwork um facade right

01:45:06 um facade right brickwork all right

01:45:09 so just teasing out what you really mean here it was this 2016 guidance note really aimed at cutting john lewis's

01:45:20 really aimed at cutting john lewis's workload for brickwork buildups brickwork facades that was the original intention that there were brickwork is a fairly robust construction

01:45:31 construction and

01:45:32 and again within the approved documents there is a an allowance for past experience deemed to satisfy or akin to deemed to

01:45:43 deemed to satisfy or akin to deemed to satisfy and that was something that was discussed with brian martin who confirmed his view that it was akin to that process so if you have past experience of

01:45:54 experience of buildings performing you can then accept that on future projects so the brickwork facade was the basis of asking could we do anything to alleviate

01:46:07 asking could we do anything to alleviate the volume and the repetition that was being carried out now we know that it was nhbc who put this seminar on

01:46:17 why did the bca not put this seminar on given that the purpose was to explain what its guidance note meant as you say there in paragraph 178

01:46:29 paragraph 178 it was it was broader than the bca guidance note as i explained there was there was a desire to um

01:46:38 um update the industry on the regulatory position the expert opinions and the guidance note and steve evans had i believe attended

01:46:49 i believe attended several seminars to update on the bca guidance note wearing his bca hat it was

01:46:58 it was it was something that nhbc felt it was appropriate to do to its customers to inform them of the current thinking so it wasn't updating the industry it was updating its customers or is that it was that a distinction

01:47:11 or is that it was that a distinction without a difference it was updating its customers that the attendance was targeted towards nhbc customers

01:47:18 customers we invited industry experts to provide that update was the bca involved at all in the creation of this note

01:47:30 creation of this note it's guidance note no was it involved at all in the convening of the conference they would have been made aware of steve's attendance at a range of

01:47:41 steve's attendance at a range of conferences and seminars talking as bca

01:47:47 given that the guidance note was the solution to a problem that option three had created as i think you've told us

01:47:59 why not involve bca given that its members

01:48:03 members who are not nhbc people were also

01:48:09 were also entitled at least to rely on option three

01:48:13 we based the guidance notes on our personal experience of reviewing option 3 and option 4 reports so it was it was based on the evidence that we had seen

01:48:25 that we had seen i don't know what other evidence other building control bodies would have seen and what guidance they would have given to their staff to

01:48:34 to adopt or

01:48:36 adopt or approach the bca guidance note was a conscious decision made at nhbc not to involve bca in the facade conference or the production of this guidance note this guidance note was targeted to our

01:48:48 this guidance note was targeted to our customers

01:48:50 customers my question again was a conscious decision made by nhbc not

01:48:55 not to involve the bca in either the conference or the production of the note well bca were involved in the conference because steve evans attended as the chair of the bca technical group

01:49:07 chair of the bca technical group and the bca executive were aware of the conference and his attendance there wasn't any conscious decision to exclude bca but the guidance note was

01:49:18 exclude bca but the guidance note was created for nhbc customers was any conscious decision made not to involve the bca its technical group perhaps in

01:49:27 in the creation of the guidance note itself it was for nhbc customers yes some of yes and nhbc as we know was represented by steve evans on bca so was

01:49:40 represented by steve evans on bca so was the bca as the body who put out technical guidance note 18 involved at all in the production of the guidance note no and was that as a result of a

01:49:51 no and was that as a result of a conscious decision made by you it was addressing an issue that nhbc wanted to address based on its experience of the use of

01:50:03 based on its experience of the use of the bca guidance notes i appreciate that my question one more time was

01:50:10 was the

01:50:11 the non-involvement of the bca in the creation of the 2016 guidance note the result of a conscious decision by you

01:50:20 by you no

01:50:22 no so it just happened at it that you didn't involve them you didn't you did but you didn't decide not to involve them no we felt that the bca were represented with steve evans attending as the chair

01:50:35 with steve evans attending as the chair of the bca technical group did you actually address your mind to the question should we involve the bca in the creation of this document no

01:50:45 no why's that nhbc

01:50:48 nhbc looks at technical policy on a regular basis and not in every situation will that be shared with the broader industry um it could be addressing a specific issue that nhbc experience based on the

01:51:01 issue that nhbc experience based on the submission of projects that it sees now let's go to the note it's at nhb 6065 please

01:51:13 and you can see the title at the top of the page and you can see on the in the right-hand column

01:51:20 column bca guidance note 18 option three assessments and what's said there

01:51:27 and option three is quoted as you can see in the words in italics yes

01:51:34 yes and then

01:51:35 and then lower down that column there are two final paragraphs there and the last paragraph says however it's recognized that it's unlikely that a building will only have a single facade type and so where other facade types are

01:51:47 type and so where other facade types are utilized it will continue to be necessary to provide justification on the bci bca guidance note 18 for those facade types not featured in this guidance note and then you have this common wall and

01:51:58 and then you have this common wall and facade types accepted by nhbc the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhbc without the need to provide an option three assessment

01:52:09 three assessment providing that the design specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set in the following appendices and you have three appendix one brickwork facade appendix two timber

01:52:21 one brickwork facade appendix two timber paneling appendix three aluminium composite panels so just pausing there is it right that the intention of this document was to do away with option three

01:52:32 away with option three assessments in circumstances where the design specification and installation met the minimum specifications set out in each of those applicable appendices

01:52:44 of those applicable appendices yes the original intention was to address the brickwork facade and

01:52:50 and when it was discussed with john lewis and steve evans john

01:52:55 john offered

01:52:57 offered that

01:52:57 that additional finishes could be included based on his assessment of projects just um let's look at paragraph one eight of your statements at para 39 to

01:53:08 eight of your statements at para 39 to clear away one wrinkle if you go to that page paragraph 180 says the 2016 guidance date provided additional information on the options in the bca guidance note and in particular

01:53:20 the bca guidance note and in particular set out what we wanted from nhbc's customers

01:53:23 customers unlike the bca document it was not an industry-wide guidance now just focusing on the first sentence there

01:53:31 there how did the 2016 guidance note give additional information on technical guidance note 18 what additional information was it providing it was providing the equivalent of a

01:53:43 it was providing the equivalent of a deemed to satisfy approach to an option three report it wasn't providing additional information on how to go about producing an option three assessment was it no no so it wasn't in

01:53:55 assessment was it no no so it wasn't in fact filling in the gaps or the defects or addressing the defects that you had experienced through the option three reports that you had seen up to that point was it that was

01:54:06 that was an improving picture because of our ongoing involvement with fire engineers producing option three reports and i believe that the the standard was improving

01:54:19 the the standard was improving but this set out a deemed to satisfy approach that would set a minimum standard for an option three report to be considered is the answer to my question

01:54:31 answer to my question yes

01:54:32 yes it wasn't telling those who were charged with producing desktop assessments how to do them better was it no no

01:54:46 indeed it was doing the opposite it was saying you don't need to do option three reports anymore where the products and dimensions proposed in the appendices are present yes adopting a deemed to satisfy

01:54:58 yes adopting a deemed to satisfy approach

01:55:01 now steve evans told us and no need to go to it as you'd like us to but day 221 page 145 at 22 in answer to the chairman's question that the general approval given to what

01:55:13 that the general approval given to what you might

01:55:14 you might call these common wall types was based on and i'm quoting inference from underlying assessments which are themselves drawing inferences from the underlying data

01:55:25 underlying data would you agree with that general description of what this guidance note was now

01:55:31 was now permitting yes

01:55:36 was the board told that the purpose of this guidance note was

01:55:42 was precisely that to enable those who are to enable

01:55:49 building control officers to draw inference from underlying assessments which are themselves inferences from underlying data

01:55:58 i can't comment on the factual information that was provided to the board but ian davis was involved in the discussions around the production of the guidance note and actually

01:56:09 the guidance note and actually asked for it to be considered as a way forward so i would assume that he would have updated the board accordingly do you accept that this guidance note was in essence a

01:56:21 that this guidance note was in essence a shortcut to avoid the need for compliance with option one or option two or option three provided that the proposed external wall buildup was going to be using the products and

01:56:34 was going to be using the products and the dimensions listed in the appendices it was the equivalence of an option 3 report

01:56:41 report and that that option three was an alternative to options one and two as we know yes so it so i think the answer to my question is yes so long as you used the products and the dimensions listed in the appendices you

01:56:53 dimensions listed in the appendices you didn't need to worry about options one or two or three that's correct but it would still be assessed on a case-by-case basis yes no i absolutely understand that was the

01:57:04 i absolutely understand that was the board told that

01:57:10 that was the purpose in other words it was a shortcut to avoid the need to go through option one or two or three before the guidance note was produced the

01:57:19 the it was taken to the executive directors of the main board and they were briefed on the facade conference and the guidance and gave their approval for it

01:57:30 guidance and gave their approval for it to be released so i would have assumed that by the eds sorry executive directors being briefed that they would have notified the main board when

01:57:41 when and we covered this a little bit with john lewis in his evidence but when the decision was made by you

01:57:48 you to

01:57:49 to approve the guidance note and present it to the board before you did that did you think of going to an independent fire engineer such for example as the bre or xova or

01:58:03 such for example as the bre or xova or chilton or arab and asking them whether this approach this shortcut was safe

01:58:14 this shortcut was safe well i didn't present it to the board um it was it was discussed with the executive directors which i believe steve did

01:58:23 steve did and the guidance was based on nhbc's experience of receiving option three reports so it was based on the the bank of data that we held

01:58:34 of data that we held and on the basis of that and john lewis's

01:58:39 lewis's opinions around those reports it was crafted along those lines did you or anybody in your team look at approved document b to make sure

01:58:52 to make sure that this approach inference on inference on data was a permitted route to compliance it was a

01:59:01 it was a as a further further alternative it was discussed with brian martin and his comment was it's akin to a deemed to satisfy root it's not an answer to my question i'm

01:59:12 it's not an answer to my question i'm afraid i'm asking you about whether you inside the nhbc picked up approved document b looked opened it looked at it and asked yourself whether instead of insist instead of insisting

01:59:24 instead of insist instead of insisting that a particular wall builder went through a full system test and instead of a desktop which you had assumed or thought was um

01:59:34 um uh permitted by appendix a an an

01:59:39 an an extrapolation from a desktop from underlying data was something contemplated or permitted by adb

01:59:48 adb it would have been common knowledge under regulation 7 and the guidance to regulation 7 that past experience can be used to inform future decisions and that

01:59:59 used to inform future decisions and that that had existed for quite some time in approved document seven well

02:00:05 well how far does that go here is a building built into 2007 with k-15 with an acm 100 pe core it's now seven years on it hasn't burnt down yet

02:00:16 seven years on it hasn't burnt down yet is that sufficient past experience to enable a building control officer to sign off the next one no the the assumption of past experience

02:00:27 no the the assumption of past experience would have been on the basis of a compliance solution to start with well that's if i must say great respect circular

02:00:37 circular because

02:00:38 because it contains in the answer the word compliance it begs the question great respect doesn't it no i don't believe it does i think you

02:00:49 no i don't believe it does i think you know when when assessing projects every project is assessed for compliance with the building regulations was the board told

02:01:00 was the board told that this approach although not spelt out in approved document b as one of the available alternatives to compliance was nonetheless blessed by government as

02:01:13 was nonetheless blessed by government as a kin to satisfy i'm sure that they would have been briefed it wasn't me personally that did the briefing to the executive directors or then to the main board were you did you tell the board or did anybody to

02:01:25 did you tell the board or did anybody to your knowledge tell the board that nobody in your organization had actually examined adb to check whether this approach was permitted there was no reason to examine adb it was common knowledge in relation to

02:01:37 was common knowledge in relation to regulation seven had was the board told that it that this approach had not been independently tested or peer reviewed by any external fire specialist organization such as the bre or oaks

02:01:50 organization such as the bre or oaks over or chilton i don't know exactly what was reported to the board but i would have assumed that they would have been advised that this was prepared by nhbc's specialists

02:02:02 this was prepared by nhbc's specialists on the basis of the information that nhbc had received on a number of projects is the reason just revisiting the point again that you didn't go to any of those external independent

02:02:13 any of those external independent organizations and ask them whether uh it met

02:02:16 met it fitted within adb or was otherwise safe

02:02:21 safe the fact that you simply relied on brian martin's presence at the conference no and the fact that he didn't object no not at all it was it was developed initially as i say to address the issue

02:02:33 initially as i say to address the issue in relation to brickwork uh john lewis suggested extending the the note to cover the scenarios that he had seen option three reports on and on that basis it was

02:02:45 and on that basis it was discussed internally it went through a peer review through sorry not peer review

02:02:52 authorisation through the executive directors

02:02:55 directors it was reviewed by a number of nhbc colleagues it was then presented at a conference where other members of industry including mhclg officials

02:03:08 industry including mhclg officials including xover that had produced significant numbers of reports and the bre that had produced significant number of reports and it was made readily available

02:03:19 and it was made readily available for those parties to contribute or make comment sorry on the completed report or the completed note

02:03:31 let's look at the guidance note please uh at page let's get back to it nhb 6065 and let's go to appendix 3 which relates to aluminium composite panels on page

02:03:42 to aluminium composite panels on page four

02:03:43 four and we can see the first section on the left hand side of the column says key issues and that sets out the importance of cavity barriers the second paragraph states that the measure set out in the

02:03:54 states that the measure set out in the bullet points below are an acm panel build up that will meet br 135 criteria and let's look then looking at the bullet points underneath that the first

02:04:06 that the first of these appropriate measures is quotes the use of minimum class b in accordance with bsen 13501 part one aluminium composite panels which provide a class naught surface spread of flame

02:04:17 a class naught surface spread of flame and that's a relaxed requirement isn't it from what technical guidance note 18 required which was that all elements of the external wall build up needed to be materials of limited combustibility

02:04:29 sorry could you repeat the question yes that is a relaxation of option one in the bca technical guidance note 18 which was that all elements including the external facings

02:04:40 including the external facings of an external wall build up needed to be material of limited combustibility this wasn't proposing an option one this was addressing option three

02:04:51 was addressing option three uh all right let me put it another way uh

02:04:54 uh it's saying that it is appropriate to use as a rain screen panel an acm panel of class b now you accept that that's that would not have met option one

02:05:06 not have met option one no no

02:05:08 no no so it's a relaxation of that requirement isn't it if you were going through option one you couldn't use it but if you're using this guidance you can and this would be equivalent of an option three

02:05:26 well just pausing there just on that product do you accept that the 2016 guidance actually contravenes technical guidance note 18. so far as option one is concerned isn't

02:05:37 so far as option one is concerned isn't it

02:05:38 it option one says you use materials of limited combustibility and you're now saying you don't need to no this relates to option three there are several options within the guidance

02:05:49 are several options within the guidance and this reflects option three were you aware at the time the option that class b panels were not materials of limited combustibility

02:06:01 yes

02:06:05 and then looking at below the bullet points restrictions on use it says the use of polythene or polythene mineral called aluminium composite panels which do not achieve a minimum class

02:06:17 a minimum class b combustibility classification fall outside the scope of this guidance note such products are unsuitable for use in high-rise situations it is also imperative that substitution with a less fire resistant product does

02:06:30 with a less fire resistant product does not

02:06:30 not does not take place on site now the word polythene there

02:06:37 i think you thought was it was a typo yes

02:06:42 yes mr lewis told us that it wasn't i i would accept his superior knowledge of the classifications of families of products did you have a discussion with him um at

02:06:54 did you have a discussion with him um at the time

02:06:55 the time about the word polythene before this document was presented to the facade conference i would have seen several drafts of this

02:07:06 drafts of this based on the initial

02:07:09 draft around brickwork facades then it was updated and amended as things were added so there would have been several iterations that

02:07:21 it may have been word blindness or other things that it wasn't picked up through the course of proofreading

02:07:30 did you have a discussion with him at any time about whether the word polythene wars or wasn't a taipei

02:07:37 i don't recall right well we may come back to that in in in a moment uh it it it's clear i think that the guidance note accepts pe called acm panels provided they achieve a minimum

02:07:49 panels provided they achieve a minimum of class b combustibility yes no no

02:07:56 no wait why no um

02:07:59 um certainly not the way i read it and if if you can scroll back up

02:08:05 the introduction to this section talks about mineral cord aluminium composite panels

02:08:11 panels so that would have been the basis for this appendix and then the restrictions on use and again the way i read it and understood it was intended was the restrictions would exclude the

02:08:24 was the restrictions would exclude the use of all pure polythene cord and only except polythene mineral cord that achieved a class b what content of mineral core i would

02:08:36 what content of mineral core i would leave that to the fire engineers but from discussions with john lewis i think it's 70 30. that's the sort of standard that we have seen through option three reports when were those discussions

02:08:49 reports when were those discussions throughout the course of the option three escalations and reviews you say 70 30

02:08:55 30 70 mineral 30 pe yes and that was a standard fixed at the time was it in in the discussions it was what we saw through option three reports that

02:09:07 through option three reports that again

02:09:08 again not my area of expertise but the way i understood it there are three classes of acm one that is fully fire rated that has a pure mineral core one that has a mixture based on the

02:09:19 one that has a mixture based on the approximately 70 30 and one that has a polyethylene core are they always 70 30 or might they be 80 20 or 60 40. i i don't know it's

02:09:30 80 20 or 60 40. i i don't know it's outside my area of expertise the reason i'm asking you is because uh we've not seen any documents uh evidencing any discussion between you and john lewis about the precise

02:09:41 and john lewis about the precise um threshold for acceptability of mineral content are you sure there was that sort of discussion at the time before this guidance note was published absolutely they would have been discussed on a case-by-case basis for

02:09:52 discussed on a case-by-case basis for option three reports and john lewis would have educated myself on what those different standards of acm related to so can you explain why this

02:10:04 so can you explain why this note does not say in either the first bullet point i've read to you all the restrictions on news that i've read to you

02:10:11 you that polythene or polyethylene mineral called aluminium composite panels needed to have a mineral content of at least 70 percent

02:10:20 percent can you explain why that is not there presumably because it's probably not common

02:10:26 common in terms of the understanding around different classifications of acm and class b is more commonly understood

02:10:38 why did you allow a document which simply said polythene mineral cord stroke mineral called aluminium composite panels without specifying the safety threshold of the mineral content to go out

02:10:49 to go out if you knew that that was the safety threshold

02:10:53 threshold on the basis that people

02:10:56 people undertaking the submissions to nhbc would have used

02:11:02 used an expert to produce any information to us but also on the basis that our staff checking the application when it was received on a project specific basis

02:11:15 received on a project specific basis would understand what class b meant

02:11:21 on the

02:11:23 the polythene i've asked you about we've moved away from my question uh there's no it it's let me start again it says the use of polythene or polythene mineral called aluminium composite panels which

02:11:35 called aluminium composite panels which do not achieve a minimum class b combustibility classification etc what was the purpose of referring to polythene

02:11:44 polythene aluminium composite panels in contra distinction to those which had a mineral core sorry could you rephrase the question what was the purpose of having both in there as an alternative polythene or

02:11:57 there as an alternative polythene or polythene mineral core it was capturing all of the restrictions around the guidance so any poly polyethylene core panel and any polyethylene mineral core panel that

02:12:09 polyethylene mineral core panel that didn't achieve a class b would fall outside the scope of the guidance

02:12:15 what was the purpose of having a reference to polythene or polythene mineral core why not just say acm

02:12:24 acm panels which do not achieve minimum class b

02:12:28 class b what was the purpose of referring to the core at all just to make it explicit that both classes were considered and restricted in use

02:12:41 considered and restricted in use by that paragraph but it doesn't do that does it in fact what it does is it tells it you can use a 100 polyethylene core provided it achieves a minimum class b

02:12:52 achieves a minimum class b combustibility classification if there is such a thing no i don't i don't believe it does the way that i've read it and it was being applied by my teams

02:13:03 it and it was being applied by my teams was that the use of polyethylene full stop

02:13:08 full stop and the use of polyethylene ethylene mineral core panels that didn't achieve class b fell outside the scope of this guidance

02:13:20 well that's what it says but my question is slightly different what was the point of referring to polythene as opposed to

02:13:31 of referring to polythene as opposed to any core with a mineral content unless you were intending to hint at least that the use of polythene pure polythene polyethylene core was was acceptable

02:13:42 polyethylene core was was acceptable provided it achieved minimum class b i don't think there was any hint that it was acceptable it was very clear in my mind on the restrictions on use that polyethylene was not included in this

02:13:54 polyethylene was not included in this note i think what you're telling us is that you read this as if there were a comma after polythene and a comma after

02:14:05 and a comma after classification so that these senses the use of polythene falls outside the go for this guidance and the use of polythene mineral chord panels which don't achieve a class b

02:14:17 panels which don't achieve a class b fall outside the scope of this guidance is that what you're saying correct yes

02:14:24 i mean the commas aren't there of course no but but that's what you're saying you understood it to me absolutely

02:14:37 why not make it clearer well that was one of the reasons that we decided to withdraw the guidance because it was being it could be open to being misread i i was clear in my mind

02:14:49 misread i i was clear in my mind that the wording and the intention but what wasn't clear was the way other people were perceiving the guidance not that

02:14:57 that any of my staff read it incorrectly all of my staff that applied it applied it as i've stated

02:15:07 did you have a discussion john i just just i'm sorry to cut across you but

02:15:12 but the restriction on use was essentially to ensure that the panel had a minimum uh reaction to fire classification wasn't it correct and that was going to be class b

02:15:24 be class b so what was wrong with the use if it existed of a polythene chord panel which had achieved a class b well

02:15:33 well one we didn't think such a panel existed in that case it wouldn't apply but but to be sure and to make it clear because we had seen submissions under um

02:15:45 under um any some building control applications where because of the ambiguity or misunderstanding around filler we had seen pe chord panel proposed so this was

02:15:56 seen pe chord panel proposed so this was to make it explicit that any pe called panel should not be used even if it had a certificate from the bba for example saying that it was a class b if well again

02:16:08 if well again the

02:16:09 the the way that these were assessed and the way that the training was rolled out to my staff they would look at the bba certificate and they would read it in its entirety and

02:16:19 and question if a pe chord panel would achieve a class b right thank you very much thank you i'm sorry mr miller uh now uh

02:16:34 you're telling builders here and i think bcos that an external wall buildup of acm panels of class b and therefore not material of limited combustibility together with insulation

02:16:47 combustibility together with insulation products and you can see them on the right hand side of the screen if we just scroll down you see insulation kingspan celotex extra therm yes which are not materials for limited combustibility are they no

02:16:58 for limited combustibility are they no no so you're telling builders and bcos an external wall buildup with acm class b panels and insulation products of those kinds neither of which none of

02:17:09 of those kinds neither of which none of which are materials of limited combustibility is acceptable for meeting the functional requirement b4 yes as the equivalent to option three and i would just state that

02:17:20 option three and i would just state that it was to nhbc staff and nhbc customers

02:17:28 yes you've said that but you're telling them that your guidance is that the use of those materials combined in a high-rise external wall build up was acceptable

02:17:40 external wall build up was acceptable for the purposes of meeting the functional requirement b4 yes as the equivalent to an option three and just help me how is that consistent with the provisions of approved document b

02:17:50 b as i've mentioned it's akin to a deemed to satisfy route that exists under regulation 7.

02:17:59 now while we're in this document you'll see that in two places left hand side first bullet point and on the right-hand side it refers to

02:18:10 and on the right-hand side it refers to class naught surface spread of flame or class naught surface spread of flame classification um

02:18:17 um did you realize that class naught is not a surface spread of flame classification but a combination of surface spread of flame and fire propagation yes you did

02:18:28 yes you did did you intend that the use of the expression class naught surface spread of flame

02:18:32 of flame meant that acm panels only had to pass bs 476 part seven which is the surface spreader flame test no i think the the common understanding of class naught surface spread of flame

02:18:45 of class naught surface spread of flame would

02:18:46 would cover both of those tests well what was the purpose of using the word surface spread of flame classification um to make it clear that

02:18:56 that what i think what we had seen through some of the option three reports

02:19:01 reports was

02:19:02 was the use of different aluminium panels that

02:19:08 that were varied and their classification was varied by

02:19:13 varied by the the color of paint for example and the external finish so it was about identifying that the surface spread of flame rating achieved the class naught

02:19:35 so

02:19:38 that would tend to indicate that you would accept a panel which had not passed the bs 476 part six propagation test that had passed the surface spread of flame under test seven part seven

02:19:55 that that certainly wasn't the intention of the wording but you can see how you can read it can't you yes and indeed mr lewis accepted that and accepted that it was inaccurate and misleading would you agree

02:20:07 misleading would you agree no

02:20:09 no no

02:20:15 but you would agree i think that if you're if you're defining class naught you don't define it by reference solely to surface spread of flame because it's a two-part test isn't it it is yes and

02:20:26 a two-part test isn't it it is yes and therefore to say a class naught surface but a flame classification is in fact um only half the story isn't it

02:20:34 i think it would have been understood by the audience that were using this guidance

02:20:39 guidance you think it would have been but why put something in there that's at least ambiguous on the basis that you hope they might or thought they might understand it to be like you'll be like the comma was absent yes well i was common that sorry

02:20:51 absent yes well i was common that sorry i was confident that

02:20:54 that my surveyors understood it and the intention of the wording and they would then have the responsibility if it was misunderstood by any of our customers

02:21:05 by any of our customers to

02:21:06 to go back and advise challenge or provide further evidence looking at the guidance uh

02:21:13 uh from the bottom of we could just scroll down first please to the bottom of the left-hand column page four and then up to the top of page four right hand

02:21:25 if column could just scroll back up please you could see what the the in fact

02:21:30 fact uh what is to be accepted as meeting the requirement b4 is a list of products and dimensions isn't it yes yes

02:21:41 yes yes there's nothing in there about um orientation or

02:21:46 or [Music]

02:21:48 [Music] spacing or anything like that other than what we see here yes

02:21:53 yes correct yes and in fact do you accept that it was entirely possible for a building control officer to pick up this document

02:22:04 up this document and provided it had all these things in it

02:22:07 it such as kingspan k15 together with a class b panel both of which were materials of uh both of which were not materials of limited combustibility that person could could confidently sign

02:22:20 that person could could confidently sign off a building not only as meeting approved document b but as meeting requirement b4 part one this was

02:22:31 this was obviously targeted towards nhbc staff who understood the requirements and would assess the project on a case-by-case basis based on this

02:22:42 case-by-case basis based on this baseline of data it would still go through a detailed project review to look at the fixings the spacings and other aspects

02:22:56 and this list isn't supported by a particular buildup which had undergone an 8414 test

02:23:08 i i don't think so no and this list contains as we've been over a number of times materials are limited combustibility yes yes yes

02:23:20 do you accept that it is in effect an end run around option one and two no i as i've stated this is the equivalent of an option three

02:23:34 would you say that but it it isn't the effect that

02:23:40 your understanding of paragraph twelve seven which underpins option one was that it required all elements of the external wall to be of limited combustibility yes and

02:23:52 to be of limited combustibility yes and the result of appendix iii is that you can have an external wall without any elements of limited combustibility at least as far as insulation and rain screen is concerned

02:24:03 screen is concerned it's completely contradictory the rain screen would be governed by the use of a

02:24:09 use of a mineral core cladding based on the 70 30. yes but still only a class b yes not a not a material of limited combustibility and that had been

02:24:20 combustibility and that had been justified through a number of option three reports and i believe subsequently tested well so you say but it the result is that we now have a scheme or at least a

02:24:32 now have a scheme or at least a structure described here which is inconsistent with the fundamental principles set out in paragraph 12 7 of adb is that right twelve seven yes but

02:24:43 adb is that right twelve seven yes but yes meeting alternative options well

02:24:48 well you end up with something completely different don't you yes thank you

02:24:54 did steve evans or john lewis ever discuss with you the fact that they had been

02:24:59 been forwarded an email by brian martin in february 2016. so earlier in the year uh where he expressed the view that he wasn't sure that even fire retardant acm panels could achieve limited

02:25:10 acm panels could achieve limited combustibility ratings or pass an 8414 test was that ever brought to your attention

02:25:19 i don't recall if i saw it at the time or if i've seen it through preparing to give evidence well let's just look at it then to be clear nhb402864

02:25:39 and uh this is the top email february 16 which post dates the january facade ciderized facades conference uh and if you um uh

02:25:50 uh scroll down please to page two you can see that there's an email from brian martin to nick jenkins of boot murray uh it's copied to a number of people at the bre

02:26:02 the bre uh

02:26:03 uh where he says in the second line uh i'm not i'm not entirely sure that even the acm products that have flame retardant in quotes cause would meet the rules of thumb in the ad so it'll be interesting to see if any of them get

02:26:15 interesting to see if any of them get through an 8414 test now did you see this email at the time i know you're not copied in on it but did you see it at the time do you think i don't believe i did i think i saw it as part of the preparation for today right

02:26:26 right and you may not have seen the email then but was there any discussion you were involved in or even overheard to that effect

02:26:34 effect not to my knowledge were you aware at the time of the guidance note that no successful large-scale fire test under bs8414 parts one or two uh had taken place using acm panels as the external

02:26:47 place using acm panels as the external panels

02:26:51 i don't believe so

02:26:55 you you you don't believe you were aware you mean you thought there had been or you you you thought there hadn't been i didn't know you didn't know if you didn't what you didn't know one

02:27:06 if you didn't what you didn't know one way or the other yes right if you didn't know one way or the other why didn't you check

02:27:11 check i was relying on the expertise of my specialists you see given the dangers of acm and the great danger that they

02:27:22 and the great danger that they presented why not check for yourself and make sure

02:27:26 make sure if you were going to put out a note that [Music]

02:27:30 [Music] suggested that an extrapolation of an extrapolation of data was going to be acceptable to meet the requirements of b41 that there was at least a test using acm

02:27:42 least a test using acm under 8414 where the full system had passed why did you not do that i relied on the expertise of my specialists yes

02:27:51 yes now uh

02:27:53 now uh are you aware that after the grenfell tower of fire the dclg carried out some seven tests uh using acm panels yes yes

02:28:05 panels yes yes and uh indeed they used acm fire retardant panels with pir and phoenix phenolic insulation and failed to meet the criteria under a br-135 yes yes

02:28:16 under a br-135 yes yes which would have been acceptable under your note wouldn't they yes based on industry understanding at the time

02:28:26 uh i'm going to put three things to you and and i'd just like to know what you say first do you accept that the principles set out in appendix 3 of the guidance note were

02:28:36 were not just not supported by the guidance in approved document b but we're in contravention of them no i don't accept that do you accept that they weren't backed up by any data from large-scale tests evidence applicable to

02:28:48 applicable to wall constructions featuring these materials yes not to my knowledge do you agree that in fact they proved they were proved to be dangerous and flawed from the subsequent testing that took place after the fire

02:28:59 took place after the fire yes once testing had been done on panels yes can we go to win702 please this is a witness statement from stuart

02:29:10 this is a witness statement from stuart taylor of wintec who was a member of the cwct and

02:29:17 and at page 45 paragraph 103 this is what he has to say about your note i cannot recall when i first saw this document

02:29:27 document my views were that i completely disagreed with its contents the document generally allowed the use of materials which are not classed as limited combustibility class a2 in accordance with the m13501 for example the guidance in appendix 3

02:29:39 for example the guidance in appendix 3 aluminium composite panels allowed minimum class b acm panels combustible insulation in the sfs zone minimum class b cement particle sheathing board and k15 or

02:29:49 k15 or rs 5000 or extra therm foam insulation in a drained and ventilated cavity this guidance in no way resembles the guidance in adb2 2007. i regarded the document as being quite irresponsible

02:30:01 document as being quite irresponsible and i do not know why such a document had been produced especially after winter had spoken to the nhbc in 2013 about the issues of using combustible materials on buildings with a story equal to or greater than 18 meters

02:30:14 equal to or greater than 18 meters now

02:30:15 now i showed that to mr lewis yesterday and

02:30:21 and i'd just like to show you what he says it's day 225 page 59 please and i'll pick it up at line 15.

02:30:40 uh line 15 and my question to him was do you disagree with anything that mr taylor says there and after a pause the answer was the only bit i have to or not take issue with but you know query is the bit about

02:30:51 with but you know query is the bit about being quite irresponsible we were not wanting to be irresponsible we were you know trying to do things in a better way you know that implies that we were quite blase about it that was certainly not the case but apart from that i think what he says is probably true

02:31:04 what he says is probably true question right and then over the page let me suggest to you that his characterization of this note is completely irresponsible or quite irresponsible is correct and it was a dangerous mistake on the part of nhbc

02:31:15 dangerous mistake on the part of nhbc designed to go back to business as usual and at the expense of life's safety what do you have what do you say to that and then he says this i have to agree it shouldn't have been written

02:31:26 written if it was no it shouldn't have been written we shouldn't have done it i mean you know in all of this as i say we did do a review afterwards as to where this any buildings had relied upon this guidance note and you know in that

02:31:38 guidance note and you know in that review we found that it had not been used on any building we could identify that is its only saving grace for whatever better word from my point of view is that it never actually got used

02:31:49 view is that it never actually got used now that was mr lewis's evidence to the inquiry

02:31:54 inquiry i want to ask you about his answer at line 7 to 16. do you agree with it

02:32:06 i think the the knowledge at the time allowed us to produce the guidance note for our customers based on the evidence that we had obviously subsequent test data has

02:32:19 obviously subsequent test data has raised questions over class b however there have been successful tests carried out on class b panels do you agree with what mr lewis told the inquiry yesterday

02:32:31 told the inquiry yesterday there not at the time no

02:32:37 uh let's go back to your statement then please page 42. paragraph 198 at the foot of the page after the grenfell tower fire occurred i discussed the 2016 guidance note with

02:32:48 i discussed the 2016 guidance note with the senior leadership at nhbc which included ian davis neil jefferson sarah hamilton and louis sidney among others we felt the 2016 guidance note could be misinterpreted and nhbc decided to

02:33:00 misinterpreted and nhbc decided to withdraw it this was because a it was only for nhbc customers not the industry as a whole b we did not want it to be a distraction from the key issues relating to the grenfell tower fire given that nhbc had no involvement in that tragic

02:33:12 nhbc had no involvement in that tragic event

02:33:13 event see the point above about the spelling error was also a contributing factor first who was sarah hamilton and louis sidney

02:33:20 sidney louis sidney is our head of corporate affairs

02:33:24 affairs and sarah hamilton was our head of um communications i see so not technical people no right um now those

02:33:36 um now those people

02:33:37 people uh or those with whom you discussed it saying davis and neil jefferson were they all on the executive board of the nhbc

02:33:45 nhbc neil and ian were yes is there a note of the discussions which led to the decision to withdraw this guidance uh or a note of the decision itself we haven't seen one i think it was a phone conversation or a

02:33:57 i think it was a phone conversation or a meeting now you say that uh

02:34:01 uh one of the reasons uh you give is

02:34:05 is um that it could be misinterpreted you say you just go back to the foot of page 42

02:34:11 42 you say that one of the reasons when you say you felt it could be misinterpreted and you decided to withdraw it yes yes um which word or sentence in the guidance note had been misinterpreted

02:34:22 guidance note had been misinterpreted i think as we as we went through earlier the the reference at the start of appendix c that talked about mineral core

02:34:28 core and the restrictions on use you don't identify those particularly in your statement why is that

02:34:40 well i reference the high level issues with being misinterpreted and those were the points that were relevant uh

02:34:51 what was the spelling error it was the it was the polythene debate well you see well before making that a basis of a decision to withdraw the note did you go back to

02:35:02 withdraw the note did you go back to john lewis and ask him whether in fact it was a mistake or whether he intended to put polythene no because that was one factor in the decision to withdraw well it wasn't the only factor of three

02:35:13 well it wasn't the only factor of three yes yes uh given that it was one of three factors did you not well why did you not go back to john lewis and ask him whether it was actually a mistake or whether he intended it because it wouldn't have changed the

02:35:24 because it wouldn't have changed the overall decision

02:35:31 maybe not but if you're going to withdraw a document based on a typo surely the sensible thing to do would be to go to the draftsman and ask them whether it really was a typo or whether it was intentional no

02:35:45 that was it was it was not relevant because the decision had been taken on the basis of the other two points so the fact that we had

02:35:56 had agreed to withdraw that guidance note the whether or not that typo was correct or not wouldn't have made a difference to the decision well you don't that's not right is it because you say if you go over the page please

02:36:08 you say if you go over the page please the top of page 43 that the point about the spelling error was a contributing factor

02:36:13 factor was it a contributing factor or was it not a contributing factor it was considered but was it a contributing factor to the decision mr marshall it was considered alongside the other points that i've raised as one element

02:36:26 points that i've raised as one element that raised questions over the guidance note and before allowing it to be an element in that decision why did you not go to john lewis and ask him is this what you meant to write polythene or did you mean to write polyethylene

02:36:38 you mean to write polyethylene because at the end of the day the other two factors were

02:36:46 were indicating that we were going to withdraw the guidance anyway if you had had faith in the approach taken in this document but thought it had been misunderstood or misinterpreted why did you simply why didn't you simply

02:36:58 why did you simply why didn't you simply publish

02:36:59 publish a

02:37:00 a a correction an amendment to it

02:37:03 to it stating the proper interpretation rather than in withdrawing at wholesale

02:37:09 i think given the fact that i think the guidance note had been in place for a year

02:37:14 year and

02:37:16 and it had been used in a limited fashion there was no reason to update it and we were seeing more and more movement to options one and two

02:37:29 options one and two and the guidance note had limited value is the truth in fact that you realized at this point after the fire if not before

02:37:38 before that this document was an instruction to your customers and your building control officers on how to get around adb and not a guide about how to ensure that each separate building envelope could meet the functional requirement no

02:37:51 meet the functional requirement no now you say that this note was a distraction do you mean that it wasn't relevant to the grenfell tower fire at all

02:37:59 all it

02:38:01 it it shouldn't have been relevant to the grenfell file because this was targeted to nhbc customers and used by nhbc staff

02:38:14 yes as you say so do you mean that for that reason it had no relevance at all to the grenfell tower fire

02:38:25 it was sorry could you rephrase the question well you say it was a distraction do you mean by that that it wasn't relevant to the grenfell tower of fire

02:38:37 the distraction was um around

02:38:42 around interest in our guidance and the misunderstanding of the guidance and

02:38:49 and it wasn't relevant to anyone that wasn't an nhbc customer and using our services i mean given that the wall build up at grenfell tower featured rs 5000 which is

02:39:01 grenfell tower featured rs 5000 which is in your list k15 which was in your list and pe called acm panels as the rain screen which was even making allowance for the misunderstanding of the comma

02:39:12 for the misunderstanding of the comma point in your list can you explain how you and your board could possibly have considered that the

02:39:19 the guidance note which blessed the use of exactly those components over 18 meters could have been anything other than of the most central relevance to why grenfell tower performed as it did on the night of the

02:39:30 performed as it did on the night of the 14th of june 2017. i don't believe that the guidance note sanctioned the use of pe called panels

02:39:42 so you say but you can well understand can't you and i put it to you that you would have done at the time that some people reading that might have done

02:39:52 until the chairman identified uh that uh the sentence in the restrictions fell into two parts divided by the invisible commas that was always the intention of the wording that was my understanding of the

02:40:03 wording that was my understanding of the wording and it was the understanding of my staff that were applying that guide of the wording it was targeted to nhbc staff and nhbc customers

02:40:14 customers i wouldn't expect other building control bodies

02:40:18 bodies to

02:40:20 to accept on face value anything that nhbc publishes without carrying out due diligence and assessing the project on a case-by-case basis

02:40:31 the project on a case-by-case basis now let's look at some exchanges that you had with government after the after the fire

02:40:37 the fire uh can we please go first to nhb 401460

02:40:47 this is an email of the 16th of june uh and i need to go please uh to page two in this email run which is an email from brian martin to you and you alone

02:41:01 uh uh forwarding something rebuttal of times article apologies in advance for asking but i've been asked to prepare a rebuttal of the assertion that pe chord acm panels comply with the guidance in

02:41:13 acm panels comply with the guidance in adb

02:41:14 adb i've also been asked if an independent expert would be willing to say this or something similar in public can you consider the attached and let me know please brian and were you surprised to receive this approach from brian martin

02:41:26 brian martin um

02:41:30 no i think um brian i had a professional relationship with brian where we would ask each other questions

02:41:38 questions do you know of any reason why he chose to approach you for assistance in particular no

02:41:46 no do you know of any reason why brian martin believed that you would be able to support him in his endeavor

02:41:53 i think because of the the assertion about pe chord panels brian was aware of the view of nhbc

02:42:05 of the view of nhbc around the definition of filler etcetera

02:42:13 yes did you consider it appropriate that a government official was approaching you with a pre-prepared script or proposed pre-prepared script in support of government after the grenfell tower fire

02:42:27 government after the grenfell tower fire it was unusual yes but was it appropriate did you think it was appropriate

02:42:39 i don't know if i considered it at the time let's look at the attachment please which is a separate document nhb401458

02:42:53 in the times and i'll read it to you the times asserts that cladding on the grenfell tower fire on the grenfell tower i'm sorry was formed using a composite aluminium with a polyethylene core it claims that such panels conform

02:43:05 core it claims that such panels conform to uk standards but are prohibited in other countries we cannot comment on what has or has not been used on grenfell tower but we would dispute the assertion that a polyethylene called panel is acceptable

02:43:16 polyethylene called panel is acceptable for use under current building regulations requirement b4 of the building regulations 2010 provides that the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to

02:43:28 over the walls and from one building to another parrot 12.5 the guidance and approved document b that supports this requirement says that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread it goes on to provide detailed

02:43:40 spread it goes on to provide detailed advice that in a building with a story over 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external

02:43:51 and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility paragraph 12.7 unmodified polyethylene would not meet the definition of limited combustibility so a composite panel formed with a

02:44:02 so a composite panel formed with a polyester core which could not be considered to comply with this guidance as such it should not be used as a cladding material on buildings over 80 meters in height and your response we see is on page one

02:44:14 and your response we see is on page one of the email run and i let's go back to that if we can please

02:44:19 please uh nhb

02:44:22 uh nhb yes

02:44:23 yes uh thank you and you say hi brian thanks for the email whilst i fully agree with the content of your suggested text i believe that it may be seen to be more independent by engaging with the bca as the broader body

02:44:34 with the bca as the broader body representing all bcbs the current chairman is martin conlon who i know has already been involved in some media coverage so i'd imagine would be happy to support you his adrena his email address is and it's been redacted

02:44:45 address is and it's been redacted regards diane marshall why did you think that for uterus to assist brian martin with his rebuttal might not be or appear to be sufficiently independent

02:44:56 it would only be the view of one building control body and if brian was looking for

02:45:05 support or an independent view it would be

02:45:09 be it would be more

02:45:11 more representative of the industry if bca were able to support that i follow so by the word independent you don't mean actually independent you mean representative yes

02:45:22 representative yes were you concerned about supporting the government's position after the fire at grenfell tower

02:45:28 no did you think that it was consistent with the government's historic position on pe called aluminium composite material panels above 18 meters

02:45:39 sorry could you repeat the question did you think that the approach set out in the proposed text i've read to you was consistent with the government's historic position on pe called acm panels over 18 meters

02:45:50 panels over 18 meters the

02:45:52 the the definition of filler etcetera was open to interpretation and we we saw that through our role as a warranty body where there

02:46:03 our role as a warranty body where there were different approaches to filler etc so so your full agreement was to cut a long story short the historic uh background to option one and the text

02:46:14 uh background to option one and the text of option one i'm using shorthand here but yes full material full material mlc yes right

02:46:24 and in your mind that was driven by the word filler in 12.7 i think you told us yesterday

02:46:33 did you agree that cladding panels were indeed required to be of limited combustibility i think the answer is yes isn't it

02:46:39 isn't it subject to option three well

02:46:43 well there's no discussion about that in this document is there in the in the draft i think the the draft mentioned pe core not

02:46:52 not any other panel so how did your agreement with brian martin's suggested text

02:46:57 text conform with nhbc's 2016 guidance note which allowed external cutting panels with a class b classification because they excluded polyethylene cord panels by the restrictions of use

02:47:12 right

02:47:18 you say that but was in fact not the real problem here that you couldn't be seen to be disputing the assertion that a polythene core panel was acceptable for use under current building regulations

02:47:30 building regulations precisely because your 2016 guidance notes said at least on one reading but i would put to you clearly that you accepted pe called acm panels

02:47:43 that you accepted pe called acm panels so long as they achieved class b no i disagree you disagree and just to tell me again why you disagree because our guidance note excluded the use of polyethylene chord panels

02:47:58 now brian martin refers to unmodified polyethylene that even a polyethylene called modified with mineral filler would not be a material of limiting combustibility

02:48:10 a material of limiting combustibility would it

02:48:12 would it no no so even on your guidance node which let it be assumed allowed a 70 30 mineral core so long as it was class b still wouldn't comply

02:48:23 it was class b still wouldn't comply would it

02:48:24 would it with with option one with no with which is the point that brian martin is making in his in his text isn't it

02:48:33 yes yes

02:48:38 did you agree well do you agree now that what mr martin is stating in his rebuttal to the times is actually in contravention of or at least diametrically opposite to the practices

02:48:49 diametrically opposite to the practices at nhbc

02:48:51 at nhbc where acm panels let it be assumed that the 70 30 mineral core were being accepted so long as they were class b on the basis of an option three report yes

02:49:03 did you not think to go back to him and say well actually we've got a slightly different position here because of our 2016 guidance note which you brian knew all about because you were at the

02:49:14 all about because you were at the conference no i think because brian had seen the guidance note and

02:49:21 and it was clear in my mind and and you'll have to ask brian martin what his view was but it was it was clear that we were excluding

02:49:31 excluding polyethylene cord panels did you have a conversation with brian martin about your 2016 guidance note after the fire i believe that

02:49:42 fire i believe that the conversation with brian about the guidance note was prior to the conference that steve evans had those discussions

02:49:52 certainly and we have emails on that and we looked at those with mr evans when he gave evidence before christmas yes i'm asking you about the fire did you or bro or um did you or steve evans or anybody else at nhbc have a discussion with

02:50:04 else at nhbc have a discussion with brian martin about your 2016 guidance note after the fire

02:50:12 i think that we advised him that it had been withdrawn

02:50:19 now let's go to another document nhb uh

02:50:26 uh four zeros one four six five please

02:50:32 and if we look at the first email in the chain at the foot of page 2 and over to page 3 this is an email of the 26th of june 2017 from brian martin to you

02:50:42 to you an hbc note acceptability of common wall constructions importance hide hi diane the attached document has come up in response to the grenfell tower

02:50:53 in response to the grenfell tower incident it mentions the use of euro class b acm panels for cladding high-rise buildings i'm assuming that this was based on test reports and or assessments of systems using class b panels

02:51:04 using class b panels this would imply that some of the buildings that have been found with class b panels may be okay without any remedial action can you check if nhbc has seen any bsa414 test results for class b panels please i

02:51:17 results for class b panels please i appreciate there might be confidentiality issues here but any information you can share would be appreciated best regards brian now the document he attached

02:51:25 attached to take this from me was the 2016 guidance note did you ask him what he was referring to when he said that that guidance note had come up in response to the grenfell

02:51:36 come up in response to the grenfell tower incident as he says

02:51:40 sorry could you scroll up to show the date of this email yes it's the 26th of june we can go to bottom of page 2. 26th of june i believe by this stage we would have

02:51:51 i believe by this stage we would have been aware of

02:51:54 some media attention around the guidance note

02:52:04 i see so your understanding was that when he says come up in response to the grenfell tower incident that was a reference to a media discussion was it

02:52:15 reference to a media discussion was it that was my understanding yes and how did that understanding come from um

02:52:20 um well having seen i think i think there was something on news night were you concerned

02:52:31 were you concerned when you

02:52:32 when you saw his question

02:52:35 uh or his assumption that the use of class b acm panels on high rises was based on test reports or assessment using class b panels were you concerned by that

02:52:47 were you concerned by that sorry could you scroll down please yes of course i'm so sorry all right page three

02:52:53 third line no he would have been correct in that the

02:52:59 that the acceptance of class b was based on assessments of class b systems were you concerned by the question or his request that you should check whether you'd seen any 8414

02:53:11 should check whether you'd seen any 8414 test results for class b panels not concerned i just saw it as an inquiry right class b panels

02:53:21 panels did you read that as class b panels which were or class b panels which were not acm

02:53:28 i read it as any class b panel why after all in the second line in front of you there he's referring to class b acm panels that's the subject

02:53:39 panels that's the subject it is and i think when i responded to him i gave him um a summary of any relevant class b assessment that we'd seen

02:53:56 were you not concerned that he was asking you about whether there were any tests or assessments of class b acm panels and asking you if you'd seen any test results given that you hadn't in fact seen any test results

02:54:07 test results for class b acm panels i think i'd taken the third line as

02:54:14 as assessments of systems using class b panels

02:54:18 panels on a on the broader sense of class b not limiting it to acm why that's the way that i read it it's very convenient reading isn't it to ignore the fact that he's talking about acm

02:54:30 the fact that he's talking about acm panels and to think that he might be asking you about homogenous panels such as cementitious particle boards no i went back with a comprehensive response on all of the information we

02:54:41 response on all of the information we had in relation to class b now

02:54:46 now you went back to him in fact as we see in the next email bottom of page one on the 29th of june

02:55:01 as you can see there and it goes over the page

02:55:04 the page um

02:55:05 um i don't think i need to dip into that quite yet um before i do um did you tell the directors of nhbc or that you had been asked these questions by government

02:55:18 i would have told ian davis right now here we see brian martin's interest in the guidance note presumably at this stage you didn't think it was a distraction

02:55:29 you didn't think it was a distraction because here is government asking you about it

02:55:35 i can't recall the timeline of when we agreed to withdraw i think we notified brian after this date but

02:55:47 i think that's correct

02:55:57 now going to page one and looking at your response we've got here it's uh date of the 29th of june three days later did you write this email yourself or did you have some help i

02:56:08 i think

02:56:10 think that either john lewis or steve evans would have drafted it for me right

02:56:18 does that tell us that you weren't confident about or familiar enough with the 2016 guidance to prepare the response yourself no it was reliant on john lewis who had seen

02:56:29 seen all of the option three reports and assessed them to give a summary of any that had a relevant reference to a class b rating right now let's look at the response

02:56:40 let's look at the response uh dear brian you'll recall that we launched the nhbc guidance note acceptability of common wall constructions containing combustible materials and high-rise buildings at our facades conference in july last year are you very kindly presented on the

02:56:51 you very kindly presented on the regulatory requirements relating to facades

02:56:55 facades just pausing there was that an attempt to suggest to brian martin that he because he was in attendance when the guidance note was launched was well aware of it and had not objected to it at the time that was a statement in fact indeed what

02:57:06 that was a statement in fact indeed what was its relevance though to his as a response to his question could you scroll down to his question please

02:57:13 please well yes um thank you of course page three uh of course we can do that questions are well you can see the questions we've been through this now

02:57:25 been through this now and you can see what i've asked you about it but take your time over it

02:57:34 i think it was to put things into context in relation to the attached document because to remind him that he had seen it previously and what was the purpose of doing that i asked the question again

02:57:45 i asked the question again was the purpose of doing so to remind him that he was in attendance when the guidance note was launched knew all about it and had not objected to it at the time it was context within the response

02:58:02 your response continues if we can go back to page um one please the guidance document was produced to provide pragmatic deemed to satisfy advice to builders on a limited number

02:58:13 advice to builders on a limited number of the most common wall and facade types encountered on tall buildings where nhbc had already received a number of assessments under bca guidance note 18. the advice is based on three types of

02:58:24 the advice is based on three types of common cladding incorporated into a robust construction which has been the subject of a number of bsa414 part 2 tests

02:58:33 so far all you're doing is essentially summarizing uh what the guidance note says aren't you yes yeah what was the point of doing that is that just context again yes

02:58:45 that is that just context again yes continuing the nhbc guidance note accepts the use of acm panels which achieve a class b fire rating i'm just pausing there uh you don't say it doesn't accept the

02:58:56 uh you don't say it doesn't accept the use of acm 100 pe core do you

02:59:02 the focus there is class b yes yes but the the pe core was by the restrictions on use within the guidance there are no published 8414 tests tests

02:59:13 there are no published 8414 tests tests of warm makeups containing aluminium mineral core panels our acceptance was based on 34 option i think it should be 134 in fact uh doesn't matter obviously three assessments that we receive from builders justifying the use of class b

02:59:24 builders justifying the use of class b panels in line with the guidance in bca guidance note 18 and you go on to say the assessments were received from suitably qualified fire engineers such as x over

02:59:35 fire engineers such as x over bb

02:59:37 bb 7 bwc and hh fire limited and you go on to explain the basis of the tests or rather the basis of the of the

02:59:45 the um

02:59:46 um option three reports you see that i'm summarizing yes in the interests of time and then you say halfway down the paragraph

02:59:54 paragraph uh using the results of these tests the fire engineers were able to demonstrate that the use of different class b panels and different types of insulation products would be expected to behave in a similar way and certainly no worse

03:00:05 a similar way and certainly no worse than the tested wall makeups seven of these assessments incorporated acm panels all of which use class b fire rated versions of the panels these fire ratings were verified by the submission of an appropriate third party

03:00:17 submission of an appropriate third party certification such as a manufacturer's published test data or bba nhbc has not accepted any justifications for a 100 polyethylene core panel and was not aware at the time of any 100

03:00:29 was not aware at the time of any 100 polyethylene called acm products which achieved a class b rating nhbc would have requested further evidence in in addition to a bba certificate for any such submission we've withdrawn the guidance note from

03:00:41 we've withdrawn the guidance note from our website the option would still however be opened for a builder to demonstrate compliance by submitting an assessment based on the guidance in the bca note 18. please let me know if you need anything further

03:00:54 need anything further now

03:00:55 now um

03:00:57 um first why do you tell him that the advice

03:00:59 advice was based on three types of common cladding incorporated into a robust construction which had been the subject of a number of eight four one four part two tests which part two tests were you referring to

03:01:13 i don't know it would have been john lewis that would have put this together based on his knowledge

03:01:21 uh you you say the nhbc guidance note accepts the use of acm panels which achieve a class b fire rating that

03:01:28 that demonstrates doesn't it that that you're

03:01:32 you're not in fact endorsing mr martin's suggested text in his 16th of june email that we looked at as a repost to the times because class b is not a material of limited combustibility

03:01:43 of limited combustibility the

03:01:44 the the content of that text was around polyethylene called panels

03:01:51 and when you go on to say uh

03:01:57 that there are no published

03:02:01 8414 tests of war makeups containing aluminium mineral core panels you see that

03:02:09 yes our acceptance was based on 34 it's over the page actually it's at the back one goes back up to the bottom of page one

03:02:18 one you can see

03:02:21 there there are no published eight four one four tests of wall makeups containing aluminium mineral cord panels

03:02:29 our assessment our acceptance was based on 34 option three assessments received from builders justifying the use of class b panels in line with the guidance note 18. just pausing there the

03:02:40 guidance note 18. just pausing there the results that use kingspan and class b panels what panels were used in the assessments that you're referring to

03:02:49 i couldn't tell you that would be one for john lewis did you not ask those people what what this meant or what you were referring to no i

03:02:59 no i on the basis that john lewis was involved in all of the reviews of the option three reports and would be familiar with what evidence he'd seen i

03:03:10 familiar with what evidence he'd seen i asked him to compile this so that i could respond back to brian right did you know that

03:03:17 that there were three such tests career stofix and gebrick panels is that familiar to you no you're looking i think i've heard right them referenced in reports but i

03:03:30 right them referenced in reports but i wouldn't have been able to tell you the name if you hadn't mentioned did anybody tell you that none of those was a class b acm panel i think that's that's within the body of the email so so you knew that

03:03:47 and as i've read to you it says nhbc had not accepted any justifications for 100 polyethylene called panel was not aware at any time of any 100 polyethylene we need to go

03:03:58 of any 100 polyethylene we need to go back i'm so sorry to page two that last

03:04:03 that last the pre-penultimate paragraph i've read that to you already just look at that that's not consistent with what you told us this morning about how to read the

03:04:14 us this morning about how to read the restriction in the guidance is it because you don't say that nhbc never accepts 100 polyethylene called panel

03:04:23 panel and

03:04:24 and our 2016 guidance bands it you don't say that do you no i don't but it's implied well it's not implied on the contrary

03:04:35 not implied on the contrary in fact you go on to say nhbc would requested further evidence in addition to a bba certificate for any such submission what you're telling him isn't

03:04:45 isn't um that it's banned what you're telling him is you don't know of any which will achieve a class b but would want to see proof and that i have to

03:04:57 and that i have to have to put to you is exactly the right way of reading the restrictions on use in the guidance and what you told the chairman in agreeing with his parenthesis with the comments is in fact

03:05:09 parenthesis with the comments is in fact not how you saw it at the time no i disagree right

03:05:18 mr chairman can i just finish off on this email of course uh

03:05:24 uh i think you've done no research yourself to undertake to satisfy yourself that the acm panels achieved an acceptable mineral polyethylene mix

03:05:35 polyethylene mix now i relied on my specialist right

03:05:41 and the email finishes as we've seen with

03:05:43 with the paragraph the option would still however be open for a builder to demonstrate compliance etc were you concerned that at no time did nhbc ever has to have site of any test reports for class b acm panels

03:06:00 on the basis of the option three submissions and the range of fire engineers that were submitting those and the opinion of our

03:06:09 our specialists i was happy to accept those

03:06:17 was it the realization that the nhp had actually never seen any test reports for

03:06:22 for uh

03:06:24 uh producing data justifying the use of class b acm panels the reason that you withdrew this guidance no there's a reason you withdrew this guidance the fact that brian martin had asked you that very question and you couldn't really answer it no

03:06:37 couldn't really answer it no did you hear from further from brian martin or anybody else at the department in respect of nhbc's 2016 guidance after this exchange

03:06:46 i can't recall

03:06:51 mr chairman i'm grateful to you and the witness for allowing me to continue i i am likely to have finished but i do need to check my notes um

03:07:00 um yes

03:07:02 yes now if you had finished i would now be yes explaining to the witness that we need to have a break so that other people

03:07:10 people may have a chance to submit questions would it be sensible for me to indicate now that it would be helpful

03:07:19 helpful to have any further questions proposed over the lunch break yes so germany would i'd be grateful for that so i would invite you to to say that those

03:07:30 to say that those who have who are watching this and have their own questions to submit to us should consider them and put them in before say two o'clock it gives them a bit longer than they would normally have even though they were eating at the same time

03:07:41 time yes um

03:07:42 yes um as far as you can see at the moment you have reached the end of your quest yeah i i i i'm likely to have done so it involves me as well well i think for the benefit of all those who'd like to eat some lunch which i'm sure includes

03:07:54 some lunch which i'm sure includes marshall and everyone else in the room and also

03:07:57 and also given the fact that those who are going to be

03:08:00 to be proposing further questions uh will also want to have their lunch i'm going to indicate as i do now that any further questions that any parties wish to propose to be put to

03:08:13 any parties wish to propose to be put to miss marshall should please be submitted to you mr minute uh by two o'clock but we'll take the full one hour for lunch so that they

03:08:24 full one hour for lunch so that they also get the chance to have some lunch so we'll resume at ten past two instead of two o'clock yes very good thank you very much

03:08:31 very much well then we are going to break now for some lunches marshall we'll come back at two o'clock when we may find a ten past two i'm sorry when we may find there are some more questions or they may not okay

03:08:42 some more questions or they may not okay all right please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break thank you very much

03:08:54 right just a minute thank you very much ten past two please

03:09:05 you